I've made some suggestions.
What are yours?
Repeal the law entirely, obviously. If it hasn't already been struck down as unconstitutional, that is.
And then maybe declare February 26th a state holiday called something like "George Zimmerman is a racist murderer and we're all really sorry that we we are stupid and bigoted enough to ever pass a Stand Your Ground law in the first place."
He hasn't been fired, he stepped down temporarily.
He was
forced to step down after losing a vote of confidence, and if you think he'll ever serve again I'll give you great odds.
I've already said I'm not an expert on police procedures.
Good, now follow through on that assertion by refraining from issuing opinions on that and the various other topics that you are clearly "not an expert" on.
Heck, I'd settle for you keeping quiet about stuff that you're simply "blatantly, grossly uninformed" on, without even coming near the question of "expertise."
I haven't seen anything yet that indicates that they blew the investigation however.
The fact that you haven't seen things that you don't want to see and so have avoiding looking for says nothing about the issue at hand, and everything about your lack of standing to comment on it.
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.
You don't think that a drug/alcohol test of the shooter - a standard part of any routine homicide investigation - might make a difference?
Or whether forensics might bear on the credibility of the story given by Zimmerman to police about who did what, when? Things like the basic physical facts of who attacked who, and when and where? Where Zimmerman was positioned relative to Martin when he shot him? Etc.?
Then you have no business commenting on the matter. You're clearly just looking for a pretense to take the dude's word for it. Just like the cops did.
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.
What complete horseshit.
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.
What I'm proving is that you are oblivious to major, salient parts of the background of this case, and so giving credulity where it isn't due.
Or, actually, the reason for the targetting of your selective credulity is your pro-authoritarian, anti-black bias, and the ignorance is something you maintain to enable that. Problem (for you) is that people here don't share your selective ignorance, and so you just end up squandering all your credibility.
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?
Generic dismissals of Wikipedia are for people who don't have any substance to their position.
And, again, I've already informed you that you can find any of these general, basic facts very quickly via a simple google search. They're widely reported, and not in dispute. The fact that you'd rather pursue some meta-critique than get up to speed on basic facts that have been reported for weeks is exactly what I'm counting on - it is toxic to your credibility, and the longer you go on staking your claims on ignorance of basic facts, the better.
Except he has been interviewed by the press.
They aren't saying he's lying.
So what?
I have no reason to believe he is lying and no witnesses have contradicted him.
You have no reason to believe he is telling the truth either. For all you know, he's a paranoid schizophrenic who wears a tinfoil hat and routinely hallucinates magic elves who steal his underpants. The point, you may recall, was that we have no way to assess the credibility of that statement, and so you're being unduly credulous by staking your whole position on it being correct.
And the fact that you don't know of the other witnesses that contradict his statement is a criticism of
you, not a problem for me.
I've YET to see you post anything that challenges that testimony.
Any links, you mean. I've informed you of the contradictory witness statements, and suggested several places where you can find them for yourself. And that is already more than I need to do, given that these are issues of settled, basic fact, widely reported and not in dispute, which anyone with even basic familiarity with the facts of this case already knows. I guarantee you that everyone else here already knows about this stuff - and recognizes your suspicious ignorance of such as a clear sign that you are only getting your info from right-wing propaganda outlets.
And I've also already clearly explained to you that I'm more interested in watching you embarass yourself by arguing from obvious ignorance, and then spending multiple posts complaining that I'm not doing enough to fix your ignorance for you, than in submitting to your silly demand that I need to "prove" basic, undisputed facts about the issue to you. We are not epistemic peers here. I'm speaking from the common, everyday knowledge that anyone knowledgeable about this issue already has. You're a jerk with a cultivated ignorance of the subject who is spouting right-wing talking points. I am perfectly content with this arrangement - why wouldn't I be? - and have zero intention of legitimating your tactic of avoiding basic facts by pretending that they're controversial issues that require outside proof and evaluation by yourself. You don't get a veto over the facts, and
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.
And so, being an insufferable boor, you are committed to building up the veracity of that statement (again, "testimony" is something given in a court of law). To the point of pretending that no other statements even exist.
If you were the reasonable person you pretend to be, you'd probably have done your homework on what the various witnesses said
before staking out a position on that basis. And, odds are, you might not have necessarily come to exactly the conclusion favored by the right wing talking heads, and on the exact same basis. Instead, we are treated to the risible display of you learning about the existence of contrary witness statements after having advocated a specific position based on selective ignorance of the various witness statements - which selectivity and position, again, exactly matches that on offer at the usual right-wing propaganda outlets. This being a typical, expected behavior of yours.
Only puzzling thing is why you keep running this same exact game. Everybody here has long-since caught on. What do you get out of it? Some kind of personal satisfaction for having gone out and "fought the good fight" against the liberal hordes, or something?
So, what do you have that contradicts it?
The statements given by the various other witnesses, which have been widely reported in various news sites for weeks now, summarized on Wikipedia, etc.
What do you think you're proving by refusing to do even basic homework here?
You can't show anywhere that I've been "stumping for racists".
You've done nothing else, and moreover this is a standard practice of yours. Deny it all you want - nobody is going to be fooled. Do
you even really believe yourself when you issue these denials?
Total BS and you know it.
No it isn't, and I'll thank you not to accuse me of lieing. I am 100% serious when I describe your obvious pattern of pro-racist advocacy. You're a fool if you don't understand that you have a long-standing, well-earned reputation as such around here.
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?
Yep, and so would you if you'd made even a token attempt to learn what the various witnesses have said. It's very easy - five minutes on google, or one minute on Wikipedia, ought to do it.
And, again, there is no "testimony" to be had, exactly because Florida's idiotic law prevents hearings where such could be given.
And again, when are you going to link to this contrary witness testimony?
And again, my plan is to let you make an ass of yourself by arguing from blatant ignorance of basic facts for as long as you care to continue to do so. Was I somehow unclear when I explained that last time?
Well, for the third (or fourth?) time, then: I refuse to legitimate the implication that the basic facts of the case are in dispute, or are subject to your scrutiny. My goal is to undermine your credibility, and specifically your pretense of being an objective, informed commenter. The farther out on the limb of selective ignorance and irrational adherence to right-wing propaganda that you go, the better.
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.
There is no "testimony" and, more to the point, there isn't going to be a trial where such would be sorted out - this being exactly the line of complaint that you are here working to derail, using talking points taken directly from right-wing propaganda outlets.
Meanwhile, the point was more to illustrate your highly selective credulity in forming the basis of your position. You latched on to one anonymous witness - leaked by the police because he makes them look good - and are totally ignorant of the various other witness statements.
By all means, though, continue with your tantrum over my refusal to rub the basic facts in your face. The more you insinuate that the basic, widely reported, undisputed facts of the case are some lies on my part, the more clearly you mark yourself as nothing more or less than a shill carrying water for the racist ideologues who so obviously fed you your talking points.
I've yet to see any and you've yet to post any.
Indeed.
So POST one and a link to it.
WTF is keeping you from supporting your position?
The basic facts of the case do not require "support." I've explained this all very clearly multiple times now. The fact that you will continue to dispute them is a
feature, not a bug, from my perspective. Submitting to your demand that I "prove" the basic facts of the case - and relabelling them as "my position" - is exactly a tactic you are pursuing to pump up your credibility, and which I will not be falling for.
And yet I've posted links to my claims, and you have not.
That's correct. I haven't made any claims which require proving - just obvious, common knowledge stuff well-known to anyone informed about the issue. That you don't know it illustrates that you aren't well-informed, and your pretense that this stuff is controversial or somehow in doubt is just so much rear-guard defensiveness. By all means, keep it coming.
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.
There's no long o on that recording. The fact that you will find a way to hear things that aren't there is just another thing illustrating how biased and unreliable you are on this issue.
Translation: I've got nothing.
Are you asserting that there are no other witnesses who gave statements to police, which contradict elements of your favored statement?
If so, excellent. Because it is exactly the statements they gave that made the cops look so bad, and so prompted the leak of the other, oh-so-convenient witness you have staked your entire position on.
Except my posts are filled with links and sources, your's not so much.
Fortunately, I have yet to assert anything that requires links or sources. That's an advantage to sticking to uncontroversial, common-knowledge stuff. And since I'm not here carrying water for propagandists, I don't share your incentive to exaggerate my reliability with a bunch of links and whatnot.