I heard the tape, and I find the whispered statement inconclusive. As a juror, I would have to dismiss it.
Justice and Security: Neighborhood Watch Captain Attacks, Kills Unarmed Teenager
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
And note I'm NOT defending the FL law.
Indeed I've said from the beginning it is too lenient and needs to be reworked, and even suggested some logical changes.
Nah, I listened to it though. And the word he says is plural, not singular and I'm confident he doesn't say "fucking coons", what it sounds like to me is "fucking cones" (he's driving and appears to be muttering about these cones being in the way under his breath)
Yeah, I've said a number of times he was over-zealous and I linked to the Neighboorhood Watch site, they clearly don't want people out there with guns.
And I was just pointing out that other aspects of his life, like having a best friend who is black and mentoring two young black kids simply argues against him being a racist as his motivation for this. I have no personal knowledge if he is or isn't a racist.
Except that isn't something we know for sure.
I know that they have been running pictures of a younger Martin, but the reality is he was an athlete and 4' taller than Zimmerman and I don't think, at 6'3" he weighed 150 lbs either. Of course Zimmerman's friends are also saying he wasn't 250 either.
It isn't an issue of having sympathy for Zimmerman.
I'm not saying he deserves any and I'm pretty sure his hopes of becoming a police officer are gone, all I've been saying is that as long as the eye-witness backs his version of what happened, that the existing FL law will likely come down on Zimmerman's side.
As to Martin being "a kid", I'm not so sure that's an accurate description of 6'3" Martin either as he tweeted as NO_LIMIT_NIGGA, was suspended 3 times from HS until he was finally kicked out of school in October for graffiti after he was allegedly caught with a 'burglary tool' and a bag full of women's jewelry.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...times-caught-burglary-tool.html#ixzz1qLUDlyyK.
Well clearly he wasn't half his size, and we do have evidence besides Zimmerman's own word:
One witness, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him — and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.
Well he was treated by paramedics on the scene and you don't have a bone in your nose, so no, you don't usually require medical attention unless it's really displaced (I read that he did go to the doctor the next day). But the fact is, Florida Law doesn't require you to have suffered serious bodily harm, only be in the fear of it. And the injuries and the fact that the witness says Martin was banging his head against the pavement would appear to legally support Zimmerman's claim that he feared for his life.
No, have you?
Do you have details to back up this claim?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...man-killed-son-skin-colour.html#ixzz1qLNyyqTK
But you are defending the actions of Zimmerman and the cops on the basis of that law. Aren't you?
If not, how about you just put this to rest by coming out and asserting that what Zimmerman did was unequivocably wrong, and that he should go to prison for such, and that it was wrong for the police not to investigate, nor the DA to file charges, and that any legal basis for those inactions is unacceptable?
Of the various silly explanations I've encountered for that utterance, this takes the cake. You realize that there would be definitive corroborating evidence for your fantasy there, right? I.e., where are these supposed traffic cones?
"Overzealous" doesn't begin to cover it. Guy is a dangerous vigilante who stalked and murdered a teenager.
It isn't difficult to find various countervailing accounts of Zimmerman's attitudes towards black people, especially those he considers to be "criminals." He wouldn't be the first racist to construct a mental division between the "good" black people he's friends with, and the "evil" ones out on the streets.
But anyway, since when is "some of my best friends are black" anything other than a cliche of a non-excuse?
And yet you're running a deliberate, consistent program of playing up facts that make him seem less racist, and ignoring facts that make him seem more racist.
Let me see if I follow your standards of evidence here: things like anonymous leaks from the police department, weeks after they come under fire, which just so happen to exculpate them and Zimmerman are to be taken as gospel truth. Likewise, Zimmerman's own self-exculpatory statements. Any other evidence is to be ignored outright or, when invoked, treated with extreme skepticism. This latter category includes even basic physical descriptions of the parties which have been widely reported for weeks and gone unchallenged.
Basically, anything that makes it look like Zimmerman, the cops and the other authorities acted properly is held up by you as unequivocable fact and incontrovertible evidence, and anything that suggests a different picture is subjected to extreme skepticism.
Do you think this fools anyone? That the whiplash transitions between credulity and skepticism go unnoticed? Heck, even if you hadn't already spent years cultivating a reputation as an unwavering apologist for authority this would be leaping off the page.
Indeed - your sympathy for the police and other authorities, and for racists in general, is also at play here.
And your notable lack of sympathy for the actual victim and his family is also telling.
Indeed - now, lock him in prison until he dies and we'll be close to something we could call "justice."
You've said quite a few other things, and the context of that one narrow statement there is far wider than you seem willing to admit.
But, who cares? Nobody's beholden to your self-serving reframings, and what you have and haven't advocated is all there in black and white.
And there you go again, repeating the racist media framing designed to exculpate a racist murder. After all, how unjustified could Zimmerman have been if this NIGGA was a criminal drug user?
There's a bunch of other witnesses that disagree with your one anonymous witness (leaked by the police weeks after coming under fire). Funny how you make a point of ignoring them. Too bad we don't have some legal process for aggregating differing statements, weighing them in a fair way, and coming to a conclusion about the facts. Like a "jury trial" or something like that.
Which would justify the injuries Martin is alleged to have inflicted on Zimmerman, note. I'd certainly be in fear of serious bodily harm if an armed stranger twice my size stalked me at night and then accosted me.
The only thing this law really says is that whoever survives gets away with it. That is the legal basis you are defending these people's actions on. You can't simultaneously argue that Zimmerman was justifiable afraid for his life and so entitled to harm Martin, and not also the other way around.
And the fact that the other witnesses disagree - and that various physical facts call crucial aspects of your account into question - is going to be pointedly ignored by you. So that you can both take sides and pretend to be reasonable and impartial. It isn't going to fool anyone.
Yep. Try Google. It's fast and free.
I don't read trash like the Daily Mail any more than I read detritus like FOX News.
Although it's unsurprising that you display such a callow authoritarian bent and marked ignorance of larger facts and your own biases, since you are clearly an inhabitant of exactly lsuch a propaganda echo-chamber.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
I would say that what Zimmerman did was unequivocally morally wrong, but that whether he should go to jail for it and whether the police did anything wrong is a question of how the Florida law is interpreted. If Florida law legalizes this killing (and it seems like it may) then Zimmerman should not go to jail.
The LAW should be changed, but that is a different question.
If you slap cuffs on Zimmerman despite the law to placate the public, then the rule of law goes out the window. I fear that more than I do lone, gun-toting, self-appointed, neighborhood watchmen...in fact, without the law, I fear lone, gun-toting, self-appointed, neighborhood watchmen all the more, since the public is incredibly fickle. They are as likely to lynch an innocent man as to legitimately demand justice. I think the public is on the right side in this case, but I do not trust to be right next time.
No, I'm comparing Zimmerman's actions in regards to the existing Florida Law.
He should go to jail if he broke the existing Florida law.
It doesn't appear that he has done so.
I think the law should be changed.
I do think the Police investigated this incident and the DA can only bring charges if the evidence suggests that Zimmerman violated existing Florida law.
But so far it would appear that under Florida Law, Zimmerman's actions fall under 776.012.
According to what I read the person is not anonymous to the police or the news media, but they have kept their name out of the press.
One witness, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him — and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.
See, not just leaked by the police. Of course the news could be lying about this witness, but why would they? I do understand though why someone would not want to have their name out there.
No it wouldn't unless Zimmerman started the fight or pulled his gun prior to the fight. So far no one has testified to that. That's why I've been saying about the witness testimony, as long as it continues to corroborate Zimmerman's story the law is likely to side with him.
No it's not.
There IS a witness.
Well Zimmerman can, and apparently he gave his story and he has the injuries that agree with his version and then a witness comes forward who is saying Martin was beating the crap out of him, that Zimmerman was calling for help as the guy bashed his head into the pavement, prior to Zimmerman pulling his gun.
Bells couldn't come up with any witness testimony that disagreed with that key witness I've been quoting. (see our exchanges)
What do you have?
Nope.
You make the claim, your responsibility for proving it.
Failure to do so woud indicate the proof probably doesn't exist.
Ah, shooting the messenger I see.
Good plan except the Daily mail was just quoting the Miami Herald.
Do you not read the Miami Herald either?
Last edited:
And you wonder why the mods don't take you seriously.
If this asshole can't be charged then the state should pay an exgracia payment for failure to enact laws which protect this boy and better yet would be if this was paid by everyone who supported this stupid bill. Either this is murder or it's government negligence.
If you pass a law that legalizes hunting black boys, then the law is already in the toilet.
Might I ask: what color is your skin?
Nobody is arguing for a trial-by-public here. What people are demanding is a normal, accountable set of legal processing for properly handling homicides - which is exactly what exists most places, and existed in Florida before a bunch of racist rednecks went and demanded a law that allows them to gun down black people for no pretext, and not even face arrest for it.
The fact of the matter is that a "law" like this has already created the atmosphere of lawlessness that you claim to want to avoid here.
Based on what?
Quad said he ignored part of my post because of it's source.
Quadraphonics said:
But though the source was from the Daily Mail, what I posted was simply them quoting the Miami Herald.
Which by ignoring this information is indeed exactly like sticking your fingers in your ears and making noise so you can't hear.
But if that seriously offends you, I'll remove it from the post.
Better now?
Then you're missing the salient point - which is that said law is itself as odious as Zimmerman's actions. The fact that an unjust, indefensible law legalizes unjust, indefensible actions is just that.
So you're fine with a murderer going free, so long as Florida law says it's okay?
And yet they didn't do even cursory, standard things that occur routinely in every homicide investigation. The investigation was a hash. That's why the chief of police has already been fired over this boondoggle.
Are you really going to stand here and argue that the police acted appropriately when the City Council in question has already sacked the police chief over exactly his mishandling of this exact case?
Are you furthermore unaware that this police department has a long and ugly history of violent racial scandals, including ones implicating officers intimately involved in this case?
Because this stuff is all on Wikipedia already, and it makes you look laughably uninformed to go out on these limbs in oblivion to it.
I could accept such a decision - coming from a duly-selected jury and judges. As it is, however, this is just a thin veneer of legalism overlaying racism.
He's anonymous to us, so we have no way of evaluating his credibility. You're demanding that we all take the word of one unknown person, whose conveniently exculpatory statements only came to light once the police needed such to take the heat off of them.
Again, I welcome a trial where this witness can show up and testify. And so can all the other witnesses who disagree with him. Until then, I will regard this stuff with the skepticism it so clearly merits. Any law that exculpates a murderer without even that level of due process is a travesty of justice. Your credulous embrace of any statement that exonerates Zimmerman and the cops, and obliviousness to countervailing information is obvious and totally undermines your pretense of objectivity and rationality. You're stumping for the racists and the authorities, even if you're invoking legalistic pretexts to disguise that fact (ineffectively). The contrast with Pandaemoni, in that regard, is really striking, so given his presence I don't know why you imagine this gambit will succeed. Everyone's been onto your tricks for a long time now.
Says who? The Florida law I've seen only requires that someone "reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself." I think that is a reasonable thing to believe, when one is stalked and accosted by someone twice one's size, at night. There is no precedent that such requires seeing a gun or being physically attacked or injured. Whence did you produce this legal standard that so conveniently aligns exactly with your preferred narrative, exactly?
And continuing to ignore the contrary witness testimony. Pretending it doesn't exist, even, as if advertizing your blatant ignorance of the facts will help your credibility.
There are multiple witnesses, including those who gave accounts that contradict that of Zimmerman and this new witness. Some of them go so far as to assert that police bias in favor of Zimmerman was obvious during their interactions with them at the scene.
Other than every reputable news article published on this case?
The fact that you don't even know about the other witnesses immediately disqualifies you as grossly uninformed and so unworthy of voicing an opinion on this matter.
Like your claim that there were traffic cones on the street? Or have you dropped that silly pretense?
Anyway, I accept no duty to inform you about basic, widely-reported aspects of the issue under discussion. Getting you up to speed on the contents of the relevant Wikipedia page is not my job. Knowing those things is a prerequisite to participate in a serious discussion, so you can either do your homework or just go ahead and shut up.
Or, better yet, keep pursuing this idiot tactic of refusing to do your basic homework, and meanwhile denying well-publicized facts of the matter. It just makes you look like an argumentative jackass, and makes it easy for anyone to undermine you as is convenient for them.
Anyway, the next time you find yourself reaching for this trope, keep this in mind: I'm not trying to convince you of anything (that would be a fool's errand), but rather demolish any semblance of credibility your views might have here. So if you're going to harden your position and refuse to learn even basic facts in some silly dick-waving maneuver, so much the better.
Lots of malign messengers out there, making money by feeding bullshit to ugly bigots like yourself.
This from the guy who pointedly refuses to familiarize himself with even the basic facts of the case.
But, again: the more you act like a grade-school bully and all-around jackass, the further your credibility plummets. Have you not noticed that you're already being used as a punching bag in this thread?
And you can't pass such a law without it being ruled unconstitutional, both from the point of view of the Florida Constitution or the US Constitution.
While I think the law needs changing, it is not unconstitutional as written.
What's yours?
No, this law didn't allow Zimmerman to gun down Martin for no pretext.
I think that has more to do with the lenient concealed carry laws and the lack of training required for anyone carrying one, even in this minor of a role, then the right to defend yourself from serious bodily harm.
What I did, was decline to follow a link to your source, because I do not trust that source.
You posted a link to the Daily Mail, and I declined to read it. So what? Quit being such a cry-baby.
You posted no information that I haven't already seen, nor did any of the interaction in question bear on the issue of actual information. Me declining to read to hit-job in a shitrag newspaper has no bearing on my level of information.
The constitutionality of these laws have not been definitively settled.
Indeed, my understanding is that the likely outcome at this point is exactly that the DOJ investigation will lead to their being overruled as unconstitutional.
Sure it did. He shoots the kid, tells the cops it was self-defense, and goes home. No arrest, no trial, no nothing. Just his word and a dead minor. It would be a different story if he offered an affirmative defense at trial and was found by a jury of his peers to have acted properly. You know - they way that self-defense normally figures into homicide cases?
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
There used to be a strong militia movement in the USA: people arming themselves on the premise that one day something horrible would happen that would overwhelm the police and the military and we'd need citizen soldiers: a complete breakdown of law and order, invasion by Muslim terrorists, that sort of thing. Timothy McVeigh was a member of a militia. When he blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, virtually every militia in the country disbanded within a week. Even with their semiautomatic weapons (many clandestinely and illegally converted to fully automatic) they didn't want to bear the hatred that was now directed at them. This was the legacy of all those dead babies in the Murrah day-care center.
One can only hope that Trayvon Martin's legacy will be a groundswell of public opinion against the NRA and all the other gun nuts who think civilization will collapse and by their own actions make that prediction more likely. I don't think there will be any more "stand your ground" laws passed in state legislatures, and a few of them will probably be repealed very soon.
Of course this will also dog the Republican Party, a.k.a. the political arm of the NRA. Too bad they've already got zero chance of winning the election so it won't make any difference. [Disclaimer: I'm a Libertarian with equal contempt for both halves of the Republocrat Party. But these days the Republican half have become utter buffoons. They all want to be Sarah Palin.]
Oh thank you! I have said many times that Grant was a fool for taking them back. We've had five Presidents from the South during my lifetime and three of them have been unmitigated disasters: LBJ (Vietnam), Carter (created the Taliban) and Backward Baby Bush (attacked Iraq and Afghanistan when the Saudis were responsible for 9/11). Papa Bush was a joke and Clinton, despite being the first and only pot-smokin' draft-dodgin' color-blind rockin'n'rollin' sexual-revolutionary Rhodes-Scholar hippie in the White House, was the same guy who attacked the one-percenters in Waco and Ruby Ridge, establishing himself as no friend of freedom. BTW, the only reason Texas petitioned to join the USA in the first place, after establishing itself as an independent country, was that nobody there knew how to run a country. That's still true. It's now got the distinction of being the only state in the union that has seceded from two countries. If Rick Perry really wants to secede again, I say: LET 'EM GO!
You don't understand America. In the South, this is standard practice when the victim is Afro-American and the killer is Euro-American. They used to lynch black people right up into the 1940s, and even in the 1960s there was considerable deadly violence against black people and the white people who drove down from the North to help them. Times are admittedly different now and life isn't nearly as hard for black people in the South as it once was, but it's still no bed of roses, as this incident illustrates. There is no way that a white person is going to be prosecuted, convicted and punished for killing a black person under circumstances that have even the faintest ambiguity. The fact that the killer is not even "white" by the standards of Florida (one parent is Latino) just shows you how the Southern white people still feel about black people: They'd rather support a Latino than an Afro-American.
In most of America, the answer to this question is a resounding NO. For example, in California, if someone breaks into your house and starts to steal your stuff, you may be able to get away with shooting him if he's facing you and you have a reasonable fear that he is going to attack you physically, or can at least convince a jury of that. But if you pull out your .45 and he turns around in fear and runs away, and you shoot him in the back on his way across your back yard, it is you who will be prosecuted.
Nonetheless, in every jurisdiction the authorities find ways to bend the law. Some friends of mine in an L.A. suburb once called the police after a burglary occurred, and asked the police chief (this was a small town and the chief answered the call personally) what they could have done if it had happened when they were home. Could they shoot him in the back as he was running out of their back yard, carrying their jewelry and other valuables?
The chief gave them his personal phone number and said, "Call me. I'll come over and we'll turn the body around to make it look like he was running in instead of out. And we'll say that you were out in the gazebo, afraid that he was going to run into the house and rape your wife, so you shot him in the back."
Again, you don't understand America. Even here in Maryland, which is technically below the Mason-Dixon Line even though it fought with the Union in the Civil War, it's a joke among our huge Afro-American population that there is a state law called DWB: "driving while black."
Don't you have racism in Australia? Aren't your aboriginal people treated as badly as the descendants of our slaves, in many ways? You should be able to understand the analogy.
You're a pretty strange American if you don't understand that racism IS one of the biggest and most complex problems in the world. Look at the way the mestizos in Mexico are treated by the wealthier people who call themselves "Spanish." Look at the Israelis punishing the Palestinians for the Holocaust, just because it would be suicidal to attack Germany. Look at the Turks and Iraqis killing the Kurds. China's treatment of the Tibetans. The acrimony between the Buddhists and Hindus in Sri Lanka. The treatment of the Gypsies in Europe, perhaps the only thing that all Europeans agree on!
It's short for "Neighborhood Watch." This is a program in most of our cities in which citizens are deputized to take shifts looking out for suspicious activity in their neighborhood. Zimmerman pretended to be the captain of a Neighborhood Watch patrol, but in fact he had no official standing, and in addition he did not follow the rules of the program. They are not allowed to carry weapons, and if they see someone or something suspicious, their first act is supposed to be to call the police. Neighborhood Watch people do not confront miscreants and they certainly do not shoot them. Obviously if they see someone physically attacking one of their neighbors, abducting a child, etc., they might take action. But this is rare and there would be a very intense investigation afterward.
Zimmerman was not a Neighborhood Watch captain or even a member. He was carrying a gun, which is a violation of the program's rules. He disobeyed the orders of the police dispatcher, which keeps dragging him deeper and deeper into this hole. Fortunately for him, Martin was guilty of "Walking While Black," so he was able to get away with shooting him.
An attempt has been made to soft-pedal the racism because Zimmerman is of "mixed race" himself and he spouts the old cliche, "Some of my best friends are black." Nonetheless it's been well established that even black people are more afraid of confronting a black man on a dark street than they would of a white man.
We have taught them that their own people are to be feared.
I guarantee that if a black man acted under the provisions of the "stand your ground" law anywhere in the South, he would be prosecuted, if not shot on the spot. Black people are second-class citizens in the land of the Religious Redneck Retards.
Technically it would apply to the Neighborhood Watch organization.
Maybe, but you can't change a law and make it effective retroactively.
So while I've said the law should be changed, that's really a moot point for this particular case.
See above about not being able to change laws retroactively.
You want to discuss changing the Florida statutes fine.
I've made some suggestions.
What are yours?
He hasn't been fired, he stepped down temporarily.
I've already said I'm not an expert on police procedures.
If it turns out the police were totally incompetent, then of course changes should be made.
I haven't seen anything yet that indicates that they blew the investigation however.
In this case, unlike others where forensic data is critical, they knew who was there and who fired the gun, so I can't see that forensics is going to change any of that, or even shed any light on what happened.
Bells made a big issue over not collecting his clothes or doing a drug/alcohol test, but that hardly seems like that big of issue in this case.
I'm dealing with this case, but if you want to use something that happened in the past to prove someone on this case did something wrong then post it.
I find that Wiki is constantly changing and not very unreliable on heated issues like this. Suit yourself as to your sources but maybe you should get your head out of Wiki for a change?
Except he has been interviewed by the press.
They aren't saying he's lying.
I have no reason to believe he is lying and no witnesses have contradicted him.
Until this case came up I wasn't aware of the Florida statute that prevents the DA from filing charges. But changing that law also comes under the Retroactive issue, so again it is what it is for this case
Not at all.
I've YET to see you post anything that challenges that testimony.
I think it's the key to this and I've always maintained that my position is only valid as long as that testimony holds up.
So, what do you have that contradicts it?
You can't show anywhere that I've been "stumping for racists".
Total BS and you know it.
Zimmerman says he was walking back to his car and Martin struck him first.
So far I've seen no testimony to either refute that or support it.
Got any?
And again, when are you going to link to this contrary witness testimony?
I've said over and over and over, that if the testimony that I'VE linked to is shown to be wrong, the situation changes.
I've yet to see any and you've yet to post any.
So POST one and a link to it.
WTF is keeping you from supporting your position?
And yet I've posted links to my claims, and you have not.
Nope, like I said, that's what it sounds like to me, so maybe they pronounce COONS with a LONG O where you come from, but not anywhere I know of in the US.
Translation: I've got nothing.
Oh, and James has already admonished me that it is against Forum rules to tell someone to shut up.
Except my posts are filled with links and sources, your's not so much.
Last edited:
Except I posted the relevant material from the Miami Herald INLINE.
No need to follow the link.
Nope, I posted a quote from the Miami Herald that I got from the Daily Mail site (just a fluke of the way Google works)
When did the Miami Herald become a shitrag?
adoucette said:
I decided not to take your word for it and went looking and what I could find partially supports your claim, but is still does not appear applicable to this case.
The law:
The second part of the law seems not to be at issue, because by itself the claim of a reasonable fear of great bodily harm as an affirmative defense to use of force is one that the state could overcome at trial via witness testimony.
Still, one aspect of that could be an issue, and that is the does not have a duty to retreat clause, because it could be argued that that puts the defense of your honor above the value of life. As I understand it, prior to this clause being added, an individual was required to retreat so long as retreat could be done safely.
Which of course could also be problematical because at a trial, an avenue of escape might be pointed out that didn't occur at the time to the person and so they could be convicted just because they didn't "think fast enough". The most problematical aspect though is it in essence shifts the burden to do something to the person being threatened.
But, in this case, (if the witness testimony I linked to stands) that isn't an issue because if Zimmerman was on the ground being beaten he had no means of an escape.
The other aspect of these laws which might be unconstitutional would be the "Immunity" section when coupled to the "Castle doctrine":
But the problematic and possibly unconstitutional part of this is apparently the part that relates this to the "Castle Doctrine" where a presumption of fear when your "Castle" has been invaded is also provided by the law.
In essence, in Florida if you shoot someone who is not legally in your house (or car, or workplace), you are granted the "presumption of fear" and thus use of deadly force is allowed and the immunity provided for that means there is absolutely nothing the police or courts can do to you, not even detain you in custody, no matter what other evidence exists that makes them reasonably doubt that there was any threat at all.
Again though, that issue doesn't apply to this case, there is no "presumption of fear" if you are not in your "Castle".
What DOES apply though is this Florida 2nd DC ruling:
Fowler v. State said:
Which is why I'm saying that based on Zimmerman's account which is backed by his physical injuries and (so far) the only existing eye-witness testimony of the fight, that also has Zimmerman on his back calling for help with a broken nose, a gash in his head and that he was being beaten by Martin when he shot him.
Then since the State has the burden of proof that it wasn't self-defense on Zimmerman's part, is the reason why they aren't bringing charges.
If you are aware of any other witness testimony that explicitly contradicts those statements, then post it.
Last edited:
Because "cones" is the only word that would make sense there?
Interestingly, apparent spokesman for Mr. Zimmerman, one Joe Oliver—a longtime good friend who asserts his knowledge when the question minimizes the suggestion of Zimmerman's culpability, but strangely becomes ignorant about George Zimmerman when the question might hurt the shooter—would disagree even further.
He tells Lawrence O'Donnell and Charles M. Blow it sounds like "goons". So not only is "fucking cones" about as bizarre an interpretation as one could possibly offer, it turns out that Zimmerman's camp is going with the long ū sound.
I think the problem Zimmerman's defenders face is the lack of any substantiation for their claims on his behalf. Presumably, we will eventually see that evidence, and George Zimmerman will be vindicated in his right to pursue a confrontation and then defend himself lethally when he gets one.
Adoucette said:
Interestingly, apparent spokesman for Mr. Zimmerman, one Joe Oliver—a longtime good friend who asserts his knowledge when the question minimizes the suggestion of Zimmerman's culpability, but strangely becomes ignorant about George Zimmerman when the question might hurt the shooter—would disagree even further.
He tells Lawrence O'Donnell and Charles M. Blow it sounds like "goons". So not only is "fucking cones" about as bizarre an interpretation as one could possibly offer, it turns out that Zimmerman's camp is going with the long ū sound.
I think the problem Zimmerman's defenders face is the lack of any substantiation for their claims on his behalf. Presumably, we will eventually see that evidence, and George Zimmerman will be vindicated in his right to pursue a confrontation and then defend himself lethally when he gets one.
I could hardly make it out on my computer's speakers but I played it back on my main sound system and it was much clearer.
I've listened to it and I'm convinced that there is no long ū sound.
But I've got old ears.
Have you listened to it on a good sound system and if so what do you hear?
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art..._Recording_for_Possible_Racial_Slur/comments/
See the comments, people hear:
Punks
Cones
Coons
and a few others
might be everyone's ears hear something a bit different.
I've listened to it and I'm convinced that there is no long ū sound.
But I've got old ears.
Have you listened to it on a good sound system and if so what do you hear?
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art..._Recording_for_Possible_Racial_Slur/comments/
See the comments, people hear:
Punks
Cones
Coons
and a few others
might be everyone's ears hear something a bit different.