Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kosmo
Factually Challenged
(Today, 06:03 PM)

No, you're a joke. You've contributed absolutely nothing to this thread other than passive aggressive racism. It's a shame because you know you'd not be long for this forum if you truly displayed how you feel. It has to be a miserable internet existence to constantly suppress how you really feel, all for a forum for which you constantly have to jab and run to keep yourself from going over the edge.

This. I find it kinda amusing seeing him flounder about the way he does though, even in the threads he makes he's usually laughed out of. The guy has an agenda.

It's all the secret racist messages, and people hiding what they really feel. It needs to be called out, and then you call them a racist, just to be sure they know, that you know how they really feel, because of, you know, the secret racist messages that they can tell you really want to say.

Are you saying that there is no reason that kosmos posted that picture, it just happened to be the one he liked? You think that if there was a picture that showed his entire body maybe with a bandana around his head and a middle finger to the camera with his pants down to his ankles, a gun on his waist that kosmo wouldn't have posted that image instead? Either you are very naive or you're no different than he is, he espouses something you agree with and you're angry he does it so poorly.
 
If there is not a single shred of information why chose that particular hypothetical.

Because I'm a racist who thinks he probably stole stuff because he was black.

Seriously man, read the other posts, then think about why that would be one of the only ways in which searching trayvon's history might even approach legitimacy (and as you'll read in subsequent posts, wouldn't even reach legitimacy then either). That was the whole point of the hypo - positing something bad about trayvon that might possibly be relevant to the situation, and then talking about it. I find it bizarre that you are having this much trouble understanding if as you claim you have actually read the posts. Read a few posts back, that guy clearly gets it.

That picture of Trayvon with the little girl was taken nine days before he died.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/os-trayvon-martin-pictures-20120328,0,7277015.photogallery

He was keeping his mouth closed to hide his criminal gold grill

/kosmo
 
Contributing info to this thread? Tons of people posted pics of the guy and the victim. It's not the poster's fault if they took those kind of pictures. If those pics are shameful, embarassing, or whatever; blame whoever took them and whoever decided it was ok to pose for them and make them available online or to family members.

Its not posting pics without commentary. The commentary is what paints an image of the person who decides to pick the most stereotypical image of the dead kid, to back up their commentary about their opinion about the dead kid. When given the choice to pick the dead kid on a horse, on a plane, hugging a little girl, at his prom, doing anything. They choose the stereotypical image to portray him. Its done to make the argument that looks are what got him shot. Which means that its ok to shoot a certain type of person, for the way they look.

Its trying to find fault in the dead kids side of the story, by using his past and his image to explain why its ok for him to be shot dead.

Its also saying that if he looked different, than he is portrayed by his parents, of all people. That no one would care, because who cares about thug looking kids. Its not newsworthy, all while ignoring the reason that its newsworthy, is because someone shot another human being, and went home with the murder weapon in the same day.

There are a number of drive by posts, posting fake images of the dead kid, saying "See, he wasn't just some innocent kid walking home without a police record, or a weapon, or on drugs, that got shot! He had on baggy pants! So this means he deserved what happened, and probably caused it!" His image turns the blame on him, which supports the idea of stereotyping, and possible racism.
 
If it hasn't been asked already, can I ask why a man named George Zimmerman keeps being referred to as Hispanic? Is it a benign result of how race is considered in this country, with mixed-race people being referred to by their minority race? That's the only semi-bearable option I can think of.

I noticed Kosmo saying it was race baiting to call him "white-Hispanic" which literally hurt my brain a little bit.
 
The internet is pretty good at this kind of thing. Social media, as silly and hateful as it has also been with some of the fake trayvon and facebook nonsense we've seen in here, also played a huge role in getting major media coverage of this situation and keeping the story alive. Ten years ago it might have just been another case that never made the national media. Pretty neat how it's all worked out.
Indeed, it has even been on the Dutch news here (Oprah´s wishes included), so i´m quite sure news media in other countries also paid attention to the case.

They will have to take action, they can not let the killer go free like this.
 
If it hasn't been asked already, can I ask why a man named George Zimmerman keeps being referred to as Hispanic? Is it a benign result of how race is considered in this country, with mixed-race people being referred to by their minority race? That's the only semi-bearable option I can think of.
Why would english surname conventions even be relevant to what someone's race is? Whether we think that it's right or not, people generally refer to their own and to others' race based on appearance. If Zimmerman looked the same, but his last name were Sanchez, would you feel better about people referring to him as hispanic, and why would that make any difference or be relevant? What about if we lived in a society where surname followed maternal parent rather than paternal? What if his dad was peruvian and his mom was white?
 
Contributing info to this thread? Tons of people posted pics of the guy and the victim. It's not the poster's fault if they took those kind of pictures. If those pics are shameful, embarassing, or whatever; blame whoever took them and whoever decided it was ok to pose for them and make them available online or to family members.

lulz
 
Wow audio expert, shit I should be gettin paid. I could tell it was Martin on the first listen without having to even think about it.
 
It's a pretty shocking audio to hear - if those aren't screams of terror or horrible pain, I don't know what they would sound like. I'm a bit unclear on when those screams are supposed to have occurred - is it after or before the gunshot?
 
Why wouldn't it be ok to take them? He was a kid doing kid things. He had no idea he would be murdered and that people would use those pictures as an excuse to justify it.

I love how she infers that a picture that is not stereotypical if it weren't for the context it is being used in might be shameful and embarrassing.

This shit writes itself


It's a pretty shocking audio to hear - if those aren't screams of terror or horrible pain, I don't know what they would sound like. I'm a bit unclear on when those screams are supposed to have occurred - is it after or before the gunshot?

Screams came before the shot and ended subsequently after.
 
Wow audio expert, shit I should be gettin paid. I could tell it was Martin on the first listen without having to even think about it.

I think most of us in this thread deserve some sort of honorary detective title. As every single thing we've been able to couch-detect, is coming true.

'Scientific certainty'
 
So we know who watches the watchmen now.

With cellphones being computers, video cameras, and voice recorders it will be pretty hard to get away with a lot of stuff these days especially when you add in the internet and it's communication power.

I was thinking about having my phone at the ready in case a situation like this ever happens to me. I'd need to be streaming it to someone else and make sure that it's recording as well. Then I'd make sure my led light is activated and get the people's faces as they try to do whatever to me. Heck maybe it will work like mace in that they would back off knowing that I'm streaming and remotely recording everything.

Edit: Audio analyst - Like I said, why would you be screaming for help when you already have your helper (the gun).
 
Okay, all Zimmerman defenders/devil's advocates can go fuck off.

Nah. Next we'll hear aural comprehension is entirely subjective. I'm sure the experts facebook info will be leaked as well.

I think most of us in this thread deserve some sort of honorary detective title. As every single thing we've been able to couch-detect, is coming true.

'Scientific certainty'

We're nearing the point where the Devils Advocates will start trying to come back to the table with "all we wanted was conclusive proof all along guise"
 
So we know who watches the watchmen now.

With cellphones being computers, video cameras, and voice recorders it will be pretty hard to get away with a lot of stuff these days especially when you add in the internet and it's communication power.

I was thinking about having my phone at the ready in case a situation like this ever happens to me. I'd need to be streaming it to someone else and make sure that it's recording as well. Then I'd make sure my led light is activated and get the people's faces as they try to do whatever to me. Heck maybe it will work like mace in that they would back off knowing that I'm streaming and remotely recording everything.

Edit: Audio analyst - Like I said, why would you be screaming for help when you already have your helper (the gun).

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=455317

:)
 
Why would english surname conventions even be relevant to what someone's race is? Whether we think that it's right or not, people generally refer to their own and to others' race based on appearance. If Zimmerman looked the same, but his last name were Sanchez, would you feel better about people referring to him as hispanic, and why would that make any difference or be relevant? What about if we lived in a society where surname followed maternal parent rather than paternal? What if his dad was peruvian and his mom was white?

The man is part white. If his name was Sanchez, I could look at his family history and find out he was part white on his mother's side and then I could reach the same conclusion, that the man is part white. His Germanic last name is just a matter of convenience and obviousness, to help me realize more quickly that the man is part white. Even looking at his appearance, you can tell that the man is part white.

I'm asking if this is a case of anything but reverse-whitewashing. I've stated the one alternative I can think of and am hoping someone supports. But you...what on Earth are you doing?
 
It's a pretty shocking audio to hear - if those aren't screams of terror or horrible pain, I don't know what they would sound like. I'm a bit unclear on when those screams are supposed to have occurred - is it after or before the gunshot?

screams ended right after the gun was shot.
 
Nah. Next we'll hear aural comprehension is entirely subjective. I'm sure the experts facebook info will be leaked as well.



We're nearing the point where the Devils Advocates will start trying to come back to the table with "all we wanted was conclusive proof all along guise"

of course, but that doesn't hide their bias with the photo bullshit, and allllll the smearing + using the screaming to justify how much danger Zimmerman was in.

I'd love to see someone try that just the facts ma`am argument.
 
The man is part white. If his name was Sanchez, I could look at his family history and find out he was part white on his mother's side and then I could reach the same conclusion, that the man is part white. His Germanic last name is just a matter of convenience and obviousness, to help me realize more quickly that the man is part white. Even looking at his appearance, you can tell that the man is part white.

I'm asking if this is a case of anything but reverse-whitewashing. I've stated the one alternative I can think of and am hoping someone supports. But you...what on Earth are you doing?

I'm not sure I can agree with you there. With all due respect I think that's reading a bit too far into things as there's no way to prove that, nor would it be relevant to the potential trial in any way.
 
of course, but that doesn't hide their bias with the photo bullshit, and allllll the smearing + using the screaming to justify how much danger Zimmerman was in.

I'd love to see someone try that just the facts ma`am argument.


I'll be waiting there to counter the shit out of them when it does happen

edit: double post, apologies
 
The issue isn't whether Zimmerman is white or hispanic, the issue is that Trayvon was black. Let's not sit around and pretend that other minorities are somehow unaffected by the cultural narratives that paint black people as criminals.
 
Oh, is the bottom right one fake? Honestly, I haven't been following this circus with too close an eye. I do know one thing, the kid in the top right is not what Trayvon Martin looked like the night he got shot. That picture is at least 3 years old.

EDIT: Apologies, that is fake Trayvon. This is the real one:

trayvon-martin.jpg

Tell us again how Obamacare costs have doubled by posting a source that says the opposite, then run off from the thread. That was a good one.
 
The issue isn't whether Zimmerman is white or hispanic, the issue is that Trayvon was black. Let's not sit around and pretend that other minorities are somehow unaffected by the cultural narratives that paint black people as criminals.

This has been said at least 20+ times in this thread (including by me), and yet people continue to ignore it. FFS, stop & frisk doesn't stop being profiling just because so many NYPD cops are black.
 
What is the point of trying to paint the victim as a "villain". He is just a kid and he was killed for crying out loud. Even if he was a thug it doesn't make the killing justified.
 
I'm asking if this is a case of anything but reverse-whitewashing. I've stated the one alternative I can think of and am hoping someone supports. But you...what on Earth are you doing?

I think his parents are saying he's Hispanic in order to show he's not a racist. Here's an article on it though.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/white-hispanic-zimmerman-conservatives_n_1386512.html
'White Hispanic' In Crosshairs As Conservative Commentators Challenge Media's Description Of George Zimmerman

George Zimmerman, the self-appointed neighborhood watchman who shot and killed black teenager Trayvon Martin last month in Florida is of mixed ethnic background. He's been described as a "white Hispanic" by news outlets including The New York Times, Reuters, and The Huffington Post, prompting some conservative commentators to accuse such media of weaving a false narrative of white-on-black crime.

Some, including Trayvon Martin's parents, argue that Zimmerman, who was born to a white father and a Latina mother, acted out of racial bias. Still others, including Zimmerman's father, maintain that his ethnic background precludes him from such discrimination.

While Zimmerman's motivations remain hotly contested, political pundit Bernard Goldberg says the "liberal media's" motivations in the case are clear.

"While no decent person is happy about what happened, no matter what your politics, there are some people whose purposes are served by what happened," Goldberg said to Fox News' Megyn Kelly on Tuesday. "The national media," he said was one of such groups.

“He’s only a 'white Hispanic',” said Goldberg, “because they need the word ‘white’ to further the storyline, which is ‘white, probably racist vigilante shoots unarmed black kid.’”

Goldberg added that the use of the term "white Hispanic" is almost "a parody of liberal media."
 
One more time for the Ayn Rand crew who fought until their last logical breath on this one 'discrepancy'


Trayvon Martin shooting: It's not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording, 2 experts say

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-george-zimmerman-911-20120331,0,250481.story
Well there you go.

A leading expert in the field of forensic voice identification sought to answer that question by analyzing the recordings for the Orlando Sentinel.

His result: It was not George Zimmerman who called for help.

"As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman,"
 
What is the point of trying to pain the victim as a "villain". He is just a kid and he was killed for crying out loud. Even if he was a thug it doesn't make the killing justified.

Exactly. I don't understand the line of thinking when people say "well you guys use zimmermans past aggressive behavior and record against him, why can't I use Trayvon liking weed and occassionally wearing grills against him?" It's a false equivalency and its totally irrelevant in this case anyways.
 
I'm not sure I can agree with you there. With all due respect I think that's reading a bit too far into things as there's no way to prove that, nor would it be relevant to the potential trial in any way.

I agree, no one's race should ever be relevant to any trial, except for demographic record-keeping. But you have to admit, either he has a white grandfather or he was adopted, and I don't think anyone believes he was adopted.

People, I'm not saying his whiteness unlocked his racism gene or anything like that. I'm commenting on how the narrative of the story is painfully false.
 
This has been said at least 20+ times in this thread (including by me), and yet people continue to ignore it. FFS, stop & frisk doesn't stop being profiling just because so many NYPD cops are black.

People are sick of bitching, I get that. People are also sick of bitching by the black community claiming racism, I get that. But this is one of the few times the bitching is justified, I see it as the same knee jerk response. Just way off the mark this time around.

The amount of information in this instance is staggering. But it is being lumped into the same basic often heard voice. It does force people to realize that its possibly true as well. Thats the push back I see from certain people on facebook/gaf.

And I can't say that every one of those instances, are racist. But its being willfully blind to the possible issue and motives at hand.

I would caution that this kind of evidence is not rigorous and is not admissible evidence in many states. (I don't know about Florida.)

Sure, the legal system of florida may screw up this entire case. But its just proving what was known already. Zimmerman may walk away free man, but the world will know he isn't innocent.
 
Its not posting pics without commentary. The commentary is what paints an image of the person who decides to pick the most stereotypical image of the dead kid, to back up their commentary about their opinion about the dead kid. When given the choice to pick the dead kid on a horse, on a plane, hugging a little girl, at his prom, doing anything. They choose the stereotypical image to portray him. Its done to make the argument that looks are what got him shot. Which means that its ok to shoot a certain type of person, for the way they look.

Its trying to find fault in the dead kids side of the story, by using his past and his image to explain why its ok for him to be shot dead.

Its also saying that if he looked different, than he is portrayed by his parents, of all people. That no one would care, because who cares about thug looking kids. Its not newsworthy, all while ignoring the reason that its newsworthy, is because someone shot another human being, and went home with the murder weapon in the same day.

There are a number of drive by posts, posting fake images of the dead kid, saying "See, he wasn't just some innocent kid walking home without a police record, or a weapon, or on drugs, that got shot! He had on baggy pants! So this means he deserved what happened, and probably caused it!" His image turns the blame on him, which supports the idea of stereotyping, and possible racism.

Which has made this situation far more disturbing than what it was in the beginning.


Goldberg added that the use of the term "white Hispanic" is almost "a parody of liberal media."

Then why is the term included in the US census. Our own census uses terms to separate Hispanics into black and white categories so why is it shocking when it is used now to explain a guy that is literally half white and half Hispanic?
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf
The Hispanic population
predominantly identified
as either White or
Some Other Race.

People of Hispanic origin may be
any race. For the 2010 Census, a
new instruction was added immediately
preceding the questions
on Hispanic origin and race, which
was not used in Census 2000.
The instruction stated that “For
this census, Hispanic origins are
not races” because in the federal
statistical system, Hispanic origin is
considered to be a separate concept
from race.

But even sidestepping that interesting fact of our census, the idea that Hispanic people cannot be racist is nonsense. I used to live in Miami.... there are some very racist Hispanic people out there. But any race can be racist (including black people) so it is silly to try to bring up someones ethnic make up as if it proves that they cannot contain such directed hate.
 
I would caution that this kind of evidence is not rigorous and is not admissible evidence in many states. (I don't know about Florida.)

I'm guessing it would only come in if:
Zimmerman went to trial
Zimmerman claimed it was him on that tape
Prosecution presents expert testimony to prove that it was him
Not sure under florida procedure if this could be part of the prosecution's primary case, whether it would be restricted to rebuttal, or whether it might be inadmissible period.

My guess would be that the analyst could probably get the testimony in as expert testimony - that it would be a weight rather than an admissibility question.

/notlicensedinFL
 
I would caution that this kind of evidence is not rigorous and is not admissible evidence in many states. (I don't know about Florida.)

Really I don't even think its necessary with the witness testimony to back up that it was trayvon screaming.

I appreciate the study though as it continues the trend of proving every facet of contrarian drivel as rubbish.
 
Which has made this situation far more disturbing than what it was in the beginning.

Yeah, I was completely taken by surprise with the smear campaign, sure. There was a chance it could happen, but this happened in light of Sanford PD's mistakes, and questionable practices, the story changing, Zimmerman still not being arrested.... Trayvon having no record, drugs in his system, etc. Its just weird that you now know the people in your life, that see no problem with what seemingly went down. And their annoyance at the worldwide coverage of it.
 
I'm guessing it would only come in if:
Zimmerman went to trial
Zimmerman claimed it was him on that tape
Prosecution presents expert testimony to prove that it was him
Not sure under florida procedure if this could be part of the prosecution's primary case, whether it would be restricted to rebuttal, or whether it might be inadmissible period.

My guess would be that the analyst could probably get the testimony in as expert testimony - that it would be a weight rather than an admissibility question.

/notlicensedinFL

He's already claimed it was him, so if he remains consistent with that story it may be admissible.
 
I'm guessing it would only come in if:
Zimmerman went to trial
Zimmerman claimed it was him on that tape
Prosecution presents expert testimony to prove that it was him
Not sure under florida procedure if this could be part of the prosecution's primary case, whether it would be restricted to rebuttal, or whether it might be inadmissible period.

My guess would be that the analyst could probably get the testimony in as expert testimony - that it would be a weight rather than an admissibility question.

/notlicensedinFL

Thats a hard pill to swallow if he changes his story and admits its not him that was screaming. My bet, is they will say that lack of evidence, isn't evidence. The voice is not Zimmerman, but its not trayvon either. And hope there are no voice recording samples of trayvon.?
 
He's already claimed it was him, so if he remains consistent with that story it may be admissible.

Well, his claims that it was him (made outside of court) would only be admissible as rebuttal to his own testimony that it wasn't. Court of public opinion is obviously different.
Thats a hard pill to swallow if he changes his story and admits its not him that was screaming. My bet, is they will say that lack of evidence, isn't evidence. The voice is not Zimmerman, but its not trayvon either. And hope there are no voice recording samples of trayvon.?

If he got on the stand and said it wasn't him screaming, it's not like anyone has to prove who was screaming. The jury will hear that tape regardless. All we're really talking about is the admissibility of scientific testimony from voice experts.
 
Zimmermans father, brother and that Oliver guy claim it was Zimmerman. I don't know if Zimmermans family said he told them he was the one screaming.
 
Grand juries can indict a ham sandwich, or do nothing at all, depending almost entirely on what the prosecutor presents and how he does it. It's actually a pretty scary system in many ways from the standpoint of the accused, and has been and often is serially abused against the poor and minority groups. You never know what the GJ will do though in high profile cases like this, and if FL is like other states with the sealed GJ process, unless we get a leak we might not know what happened if they fail to indict this guy.
i see.

Well, I guess we'll have to cross our fingers then. It's hard to imagine this not going to trial.


Zimmermans father, brother and that Oliver guy claim it was Zimmerman. I don't know if Zimmermans family said he told them he was the one screaming.
the FBI (by way of their advanced filtering equipment) will be able to help determine that.
 
If he got on the stand and said it wasn't him screaming, it's not like anyone has to prove who was screaming. The jury will hear that tape regardless. All we're really talking about is the admissibility of scientific testimony from voice experts.

Gotcha.

edit: So when he says he is the one screaming/he isn't the one screaming, wouldn't the prosecution bring in the expert testimony for the jury..?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom