What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

'Carolina Hustler said:
Tray's GF said, tray said "someone's watching me" and them when Tray confronted Zimm, he says "why you following me" Zimm says "what are you doing here".. None of that sounds like Trasy was scared, or that he didn't have an opportunity to talk things out, or that he didn't understand at some point that Zimm was just looking after the neighborhood.. So, if Tray did attack him after that exchange, then he was in the wrong.. And if he did knock Zimm down, climb on top, and start pounding his head into the concrete, he deserved to be shot..
Click to expand...
"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."

Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.
Click to expand...
First report of her phone call.
 
'Clinton said:
'fatness said:
'Clinton said:
An online reporter claims to have contacted Sanford officials and wrote that those officials deny the presence of neo-Nazis in Sanford...

“At this time the City of Sanford has not confirmed the presence of Neo-Nazis groups.”

My follow up:

“You say “not confirmed.” Is there any indication of such patrols that the Department is aware of?”

Further Response from Sanford Joint Information Center:

“We have no indication of any such patrols at this point in Sanford. The only large gathering was the children and their parents at the Easter egg hunt.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sanford-police-deny-report-armed-neo-nazis-are-patrolling-town-in-case-of-race-riots/
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
There's no denial there.
Click to expand...
:lmao: "We have no indication of any such patrols" is the same thing as "we deny reports of the presence of neo-Nazi patrols based on the evidence we have."
Click to expand...
:lmao: "We have no indication of any such patrols" is an indication they don't know.

"We deny" is an indication they do know.

 
'Chaos Commish said:
There's also been some videos of him attending/referring maybe even assisting in "fight club" like matches on campus. Those vids were quickly removed but a few sites still have stills.
Click to expand...
Well that clinches it. Videos that aren't there is ususally proof positive.Which white supremacists dug them up, by the way? The one that hacked his email accounts, and those of others which he also said were Martin's? Or the ones who did the photoshops at stormfront?
 
'Chaos Commish said:
'Clinton said:
'Chaos Commish said:
This thread is laughably behind the good ones out there though.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, could you toss us some links?
Click to expand...
Where better information is acknowledged both sides of the conversation agree Trayvon did not go home when he easily could have, and he did backtrack towards Zimmerman's vehicle. It's not in doubt except where people are ignorant of basic information. I've explained this carefully a few times using Zimmerman's call, the time, and the other calls. I've almost included the map that makes it very clear, but it pinpoints those residences. I can walk you to anonymous witness John's front door. I can do that with all the witnesses but one who may actually be John anyway. I've seen and listened to John. I've seen Trayvon refereeing fights on campus and read all his facebook and twitter junk. He was apparently supplying a friend with "plant" and that has some thinking he was a dealer. Not me.
Click to expand...
:lmao:
 
'fatness said:
'Chaos Commish said:
There's also been some videos of him attending/referring maybe even assisting in "fight club" like matches on campus. Those vids were quickly removed but a few sites still have stills.
Click to expand...
Well that clinches it. Videos that aren't there is ususally proof positive.Which white supremacists dug them up, by the way? The one that hacked his email accounts, and those of others which he also said were Martin's? Or the ones who did the photoshops at stormfront?
Click to expand...
photoshops?
 
'BustedKnuckles said:
another witness talks in depthhttp://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/04/07/ac-trayvon-martin-eyewitness.cnn#/video/bestoftv/2012/04/07/ac-trayvon-martin-eyewitness.cnn
Click to expand...
She speculates.. Quite a bit..Which voice belongs to who, and which was the larger person.. Then throws in the "It's dark so I can't really tell" disclaimer.. Why even say in the first place, if it was dark and you don't really know? Silly..And shouldn't we have heard some of what she describes on one of the 911 recordings? There were clearly more than just 2 yells for help in the recording I heard. And none of the recordings seemed to be her, at least not with the same story she told in this interview..
 
'fatness said:
'Chaos Commish said:
There's also been some videos of him attending/referring maybe even assisting in "fight club" like matches on campus. Those vids were quickly removed but a few sites still have stills.
Click to expand...
Well that clinches it. Videos that aren't there is ususally proof positive.Which white supremacists dug them up, by the way? The one that hacked his email accounts, and those of others which he also said were Martin's? Or the ones who did the photoshops at stormfront?
Click to expand...
I've watched the videos. They don't prove anything. Trayvon is merely refereeing a fight. It was a progressive blogger who posted them. Sorry to disappoint you. The possible drug deal on facebook is the only screenshot I have seen posted by the white supremacist hacker, but I saw it on a progressive blog.
 
How often have people in Florida been able to use this stand your ground law/‘defense’ without going to trial?

 
The United Nations' statement is bothersome to me on a number of different levels. First off, the implication seems to be that the United States itself is responsible for this crime. That is both absurd and incredibly ignorant. Obviously this woman knows nothing about the nature of our government which is based on individual freedom. Second, this woman states that Zimmerman must be tried and convicted. Apparently this fool knows nothing about our system of justice or the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

But the worst part of all is the incredible hypocrisy in the way the United Nations attempts to deal with the issue of human rights. According to the vast majority of the membership of the U.N., there are two great sources of evil on this planet: the United States of America, and the state of Israel. These two villains commit every human rights violation known to man, and are condemned for doing so on an almost weekly basis. We and Israel are condemned by many of the most hideous regimes in world history- regimes which were imposed on their people without consent or free election, regimes which engage in government-sponsored genocide, torture, concentration camps, and other crimes against humanity. Almost never are these regimes called to task- it is only America and Israel that ever seem to get condemned.

And of course, a good chunk of all of this is paid for by the United States taxpayer. We front the bill for their beautiful building in New York City where they frequently spit in our faces.

 
'timschochet said:
The United Nations' statement is bothersome to me on a number of different levels. First off, the implication seems to be that the United States itself is responsible for this crime. That is both absurd and incredibly ignorant. Obviously this woman knows nothing about the nature of our government which is based on individual freedom. Second, this woman states that Zimmerman must be tried and convicted. Apparently this fool knows nothing about our system of justice or the concept of innocent until proven guilty. But the worst part of all is the incredible hypocrisy in the way the United Nations attempts to deal with the issue of human rights. According to the vast majority of the membership of the U.N., there are two great sources of evil on this planet: the United States of America, and the state of Israel. These two villains commit every human rights violation known to man, and are condemned for doing so on an almost weekly basis. We and Israel are condemned by many of the most hideous regimes in world history- regimes which were imposed on their people without consent or free election, regimes which engage in government-sponsored genocide, torture, concentration camps, and other crimes against humanity. Almost never are these regimes called to task- it is only America and Israel that ever seem to get condemned. And of course, a good chunk of all of this is paid for by the United States taxpayer. We front the bill for their beautiful building in New York City where they frequently spit in our faces.
Click to expand...
While I agree with you, I don't think they even warrant the response, much less the thought.
 
'fatness said:
'Chaos Commish said:
'Clinton said:
'Chaos Commish said:
This thread is laughably behind the good ones out there though.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, could you toss us some links?
Click to expand...
Where better information is acknowledged both sides of the conversation agree Trayvon did not go home when he easily could have, and he did backtrack towards Zimmerman's vehicle. It's not in doubt except where people are ignorant of basic information. I've explained this carefully a few times using Zimmerman's call, the time, and the other calls. I've almost included the map that makes it very clear, but it pinpoints those residences. I can walk you to anonymous witness John's front door. I can do that with all the witnesses but one who may actually be John anyway. I've seen and listened to John. I've seen Trayvon refereeing fights on campus and read all his facebook and twitter junk. He was apparently supplying a friend with "plant" and that has some thinking he was a dealer. Not me.
Click to expand...
:lmao:
Click to expand...
I can't help it if these dolts won't acknowledge simple information about the timeline and scene of the shooting. But laughing in ignorance always works too. :thumbup:
 
'Clinton said:
Trayvon Martin killing: UN human rights chief calls for investigation

"The law should operate equally in respect of all violations. I will be awaiting an investigation and prosecution and trial and of course reparations for the victims concerned," Ms Pillay said.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
'timschochet said:
The United Nations' statement is bothersome to me on a number of different levels. First off, the implication seems to be that the United States itself is responsible for this crime. That is both absurd and incredibly ignorant. Obviously this woman knows nothing about the nature of our government which is based on individual freedom. Second, this woman states that Zimmerman must be tried and convicted. Apparently this fool knows nothing about our system of justice or the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

But the worst part of all is the incredible hypocrisy in the way the United Nations attempts to deal with the issue of human rights. According to the vast majority of the membership of the U.N., there are two great sources of evil on this planet: the United States of America, and the state of Israel. These two villains commit every human rights violation known to man, and are condemned for doing so on an almost weekly basis. We and Israel are condemned by many of the most hideous regimes in world history- regimes which were imposed on their people without consent or free election, regimes which engage in government-sponsored genocide, torture, concentration camps, and other crimes against humanity. Almost never are these regimes called to task- it is only America and Israel that ever seem to get condemned.

And of course, a good chunk of all of this is paid for by the United States taxpayer. We front the bill for their beautiful building in New York City where they frequently spit in our faces.
Click to expand...
This is nonsense. The UN talks about human rights violations elsewhere all the time. Go to their web page and you'll see references to Sri Lanka, Bahrain, Barbados and the Sudan and trials regarding abuses in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Cambodia. The news feed seems focused primarily on Syria, with a lot of talk about unrest in Africa as well. Neither link has even one mention of the US or Israel in a negative light- in fact the human rights page has a link about Holocaust remembrance and the importance of condemning any Holocaust denials.The woman said a single thing that was stupid and misinformed. That's all it was.

 
'TobiasFunke said:
'timschochet said:
The United Nations' statement is bothersome to me on a number of different levels. First off, the implication seems to be that the United States itself is responsible for this crime. That is both absurd and incredibly ignorant. Obviously this woman knows nothing about the nature of our government which is based on individual freedom. Second, this woman states that Zimmerman must be tried and convicted. Apparently this fool knows nothing about our system of justice or the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

But the worst part of all is the incredible hypocrisy in the way the United Nations attempts to deal with the issue of human rights. According to the vast majority of the membership of the U.N., there are two great sources of evil on this planet: the United States of America, and the state of Israel. These two villains commit every human rights violation known to man, and are condemned for doing so on an almost weekly basis. We and Israel are condemned by many of the most hideous regimes in world history- regimes which were imposed on their people without consent or free election, regimes which engage in government-sponsored genocide, torture, concentration camps, and other crimes against humanity. Almost never are these regimes called to task- it is only America and Israel that ever seem to get condemned.

And of course, a good chunk of all of this is paid for by the United States taxpayer. We front the bill for their beautiful building in New York City where they frequently spit in our faces.
Click to expand...
This is nonsense. The UN talks about human rights violations elsewhere all the time. Go to their web page and you'll see references to Sri Lanka, Bahrain, Barbados and the Sudan and trials regarding abuses in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Cambodia. The news feed seems focused primarily on Syria, with a lot of talk about unrest in Africa as well. Neither link has even one mention of the US or Israel in a negative light- in fact the human rights page has a link about Holocaust remembrance and the importance of condemning any Holocaust denials.The woman said a single thing that was stupid and misinformed. That's all it was.
Click to expand...
Timmy doesn't like them because they allow other nations to say mean things about Israel.

 
'TobiasFunke said:
'timschochet said:
The United Nations' statement is bothersome to me on a number of different levels. First off, the implication seems to be that the United States itself is responsible for this crime. That is both absurd and incredibly ignorant. Obviously this woman knows nothing about the nature of our government which is based on individual freedom. Second, this woman states that Zimmerman must be tried and convicted. Apparently this fool knows nothing about our system of justice or the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

But the worst part of all is the incredible hypocrisy in the way the United Nations attempts to deal with the issue of human rights. According to the vast majority of the membership of the U.N., there are two great sources of evil on this planet: the United States of America, and the state of Israel. These two villains commit every human rights violation known to man, and are condemned for doing so on an almost weekly basis. We and Israel are condemned by many of the most hideous regimes in world history- regimes which were imposed on their people without consent or free election, regimes which engage in government-sponsored genocide, torture, concentration camps, and other crimes against humanity. Almost never are these regimes called to task- it is only America and Israel that ever seem to get condemned.

And of course, a good chunk of all of this is paid for by the United States taxpayer. We front the bill for their beautiful building in New York City where they frequently spit in our faces.
Click to expand...
This is nonsense. The UN talks about human rights violations elsewhere all the time. Go to their web page and you'll see references to Sri Lanka, Bahrain, Barbados and the Sudan and trials regarding abuses in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Cambodia. The news feed seems focused primarily on Syria, with a lot of talk about unrest in Africa as well. Neither link has even one mention of the US or Israel in a negative light- in fact the human rights page has a link about Holocaust remembrance and the importance of condemning any Holocaust denials.The woman said a single thing that was stupid and misinformed. That's all it was.
Click to expand...
At some point we should have this conversation in another thread, Tobias. I'm willing to stand by my phrase of "almost never." Yes, you can find examples here and there. But the amount of time used to condemn the United States and Israel over the past 60 years of the UN's existence (along with South Africa, prior to the end of Apartheid) is extraordinary.
 
'timschochet said:
The United Nations' statement is bothersome to me on a number of different levels. First off, the implication seems to be that the United States itself is responsible for this crime. That is both absurd and incredibly ignorant. Obviously this woman knows nothing about the nature of our government which is based on individual freedom. Second, this woman states that Zimmerman must be tried and convicted. Apparently this fool knows nothing about our system of justice or the concept of innocent until proven guilty. But the worst part of all is the incredible hypocrisy in the way the United Nations attempts to deal with the issue of human rights. According to the vast majority of the membership of the U.N., there are two great sources of evil on this planet: the United States of America, and the state of Israel. These two villains commit every human rights violation known to man, and are condemned for doing so on an almost weekly basis. We and Israel are condemned by many of the most hideous regimes in world history- regimes which were imposed on their people without consent or free election, regimes which engage in government-sponsored genocide, torture, concentration camps, and other crimes against humanity. Almost never are these regimes called to task- it is only America and Israel that ever seem to get condemned. And of course, a good chunk of all of this is paid for by the United States taxpayer. We front the bill for their beautiful building in New York City where they frequently spit in our faces.
Click to expand...
Our government based on individual freedom.... :lmao: Maybe for a few days in the late 1700s, but our government now trounces on individual freedoms hourly. Her second statement went too far, but it might be hard for people in more civilized parts of the world to understand how we can be 100% certain a man shot and killed an unarmed kid and yet that man still be innocent of a crime.The crying about how the US and Israel are picked on is laughable. When were the last UN sanctions against the US or Israel involving anything? Oh, never... I agree the UN is hypocritical and worthless, but the US uses that body's weaknesses to allow Israel and itself to get away with whatever they want.
 
'Courtjester said:
Just announced, No grand jury. The Special Pros. will make the decision.
Click to expand...
Wow. Well, that IS news. I suspect an indictment, if that is the case. If there is to be no indictment, I doubt that the prosecuter would take the responsibility solely in her hands.Or am I reading the tea leaves wrong? I honestly don't know.
 
'Yenrub said:
How often have people in Florida been able to use this stand your ground law/‘defense’ without going to trial?
Click to expand...
An article penned in 2010 or 2011 said about 93 cases since the law was passed to writing of the article, about 63 resulting in death.
 
'timschochet said:
'Courtjester said:
Just announced, No grand jury. The Special Pros. will make the decision.
Click to expand...
Wow. Well, that IS news. I suspect an indictment, if that is the case. If there is to be no indictment, I doubt that the prosecuter would take the responsibility solely in her hands.Or am I reading the tea leaves wrong? I honestly don't know.
Click to expand...
She said earlier that she might not need to convene a Grand Jury to bring charges.
 
'TexanFan02 said:
'timschochet said:
'Courtjester said:
Just announced, No grand jury. The Special Pros. will make the decision.
Click to expand...
Wow. Well, that IS news. I suspect an indictment, if that is the case. If there is to be no indictment, I doubt that the prosecuter would take the responsibility solely in her hands.Or am I reading the tea leaves wrong? I honestly don't know.
Click to expand...
She said earlier that she might not need to convene a Grand Jury to bring charges.
Click to expand...
Right. The question is can you see her NOT bringing charges without a grand jury? If she has made the decision not to bring charges, and it's without a grand jury, then she is an extraordinary strong woman, willing to face vicious attacks from the press and public. (Not that she won't no matter what she does.) I admire her greatly one way or the other, and wouldn't want to be her.
 
'timschochet said:
'Courtjester said:
Just announced, No grand jury. The Special Pros. will make the decision.
Click to expand...
Wow. Well, that IS news. I suspect an indictment, if that is the case. If there is to be no indictment, I doubt that the prosecuter would take the responsibility solely in her hands.Or am I reading the tea leaves wrong? I honestly don't know.
Click to expand...
I think you are right. I don't think you take the Grand Jury out of the equation unless you have an idea where you are going with the charges.
 
'timschochet said:
'TobiasFunke said:
'timschochet said:
The United Nations' statement is bothersome to me on a number of different levels. First off, the implication seems to be that the United States itself is responsible for this crime. That is both absurd and incredibly ignorant. Obviously this woman knows nothing about the nature of our government which is based on individual freedom. Second, this woman states that Zimmerman must be tried and convicted. Apparently this fool knows nothing about our system of justice or the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

But the worst part of all is the incredible hypocrisy in the way the United Nations attempts to deal with the issue of human rights. According to the vast majority of the membership of the U.N., there are two great sources of evil on this planet: the United States of America, and the state of Israel. These two villains commit every human rights violation known to man, and are condemned for doing so on an almost weekly basis. We and Israel are condemned by many of the most hideous regimes in world history- regimes which were imposed on their people without consent or free election, regimes which engage in government-sponsored genocide, torture, concentration camps, and other crimes against humanity. Almost never are these regimes called to task- it is only America and Israel that ever seem to get condemned.

And of course, a good chunk of all of this is paid for by the United States taxpayer. We front the bill for their beautiful building in New York City where they frequently spit in our faces.
Click to expand...
This is nonsense. The UN talks about human rights violations elsewhere all the time. Go to their web page and you'll see references to Sri Lanka, Bahrain, Barbados and the Sudan and trials regarding abuses in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Cambodia. The news feed seems focused primarily on Syria, with a lot of talk about unrest in Africa as well. Neither link has even one mention of the US or Israel in a negative light- in fact the human rights page has a link about Holocaust remembrance and the importance of condemning any Holocaust denials.The woman said a single thing that was stupid and misinformed. That's all it was.
Click to expand...
At some point we should have this conversation in another thread, Tobias. I'm willing to stand by my phrase of "almost never." Yes, you can find examples here and there. But the amount of time used to condemn the United States and Israel over the past 60 years of the UN's existence (along with South Africa, prior to the end of Apartheid) is extraordinary.
Click to expand...
Agreed, not the place for this discussion. Back to our regularly scheduled accusations of racism, reverse-racism, veiled condemnations of hip-hop culture, premature breakdowns of the applicable legal standards, and Skittles and iced tea jokes.
 
'BustedKnuckles said:
'jon_mx said:
'BustedKnuckles said:
Getting a broken nose and some bruised ribs or a black eye or maybe a tooth knocked out is "generally" not considered to be a life threatening injury or even a serious crippling injury no matter how much you say that hypothetically you could have gotten a detached retina from the black eye, or you could have choked to death if you swallowed that broken tooth.
Click to expand...
What about someone having their heads slammed into the ground? If there is evidence Treyvon was slamming Zimmerman's head into the ground, he got what he deserved.
Click to expand...
i seriously doubt he was
Click to expand...
Still not completely clear on this: If Zimmerman is claiming that he was getting his head slammed on the ground, and that dictated his use of force, then is it simply enough that Zimmerman says it? Does he need to take any measure to prove that actually happened? The gash on the back of his head enough or would he need corroboration by a witness?
 
'jonessed said:
'Courtjester said:
Just announced, No grand jury. The Special Pros. will make the decision.
Click to expand...
Grand Jury indictments are slam dunks so I imagine they are going forward without them for the PR play.
Click to expand...
Which is fascinating in itself. Of course these kind of once in a lifetime cases offer prosecutors the kind of publicity they can only dream about- a stepping stone to fame and potential high office- that's how Rudy Giuliani kicked off his political career, and several other politicians as well...But there's a caveat. You have to win. If you prosecute a case like this and lose, that could be the end of your career. As witness Gil Garcetti, the LA District Attorney who decided to indict OJ Simpson. Or that guy who indicted the Duke Lacrosse players based on some very questionable testimony. Or the Santa Barbara D.A. who indicted Michael Jackson in front of a million cameras. All of these District Attorneys wanted to make the national headlines, and they succeeded. But then they lost their cases and have faced obscurity ever since. Winning is everything.
 
MIAMI (CBS4) – Florida State Attorney Angela Corey decided Monday to not use a Grand Jury in the Trayvon Martin shooting death.

The grand jury was expected to release their report on Tuesday as to whether Zimmerman should be charged in the Feb. 26th shooting. The case is now in the hands of special prosecutor Angela Corey.

Ms. Corey said from the beginning that she may not need a grand jury.

According to the state attorney’s office, the decision “should not be considered a factor in the final determination of the case.”

Former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey told CBS4′s Gio Benitez that by not using a grand jury, prosecutors will probably not charge Zimmerman with a capital offense.

Additionally, lawyer Janet Johnson, who works in Corey’s jurisdiction, said grand jury are used on “all First Degree Murder cases.”

Here’s what state attorney Corey said in her Monday release:

State Attorney Angela Corey has decided not to use a Grand Jury in the Trayvon Martin shooting death investigation.

The decision should not be considered a factor in the final determination of the case. The Grand Jury, set to convene on April 10, 2012, was previously scheduled by the former prosecutor.

Ms. Corey was appointed as the Special Prosecutor on March 22, 2012, by Governor Rick Scott. From the moment she was assigned, Ms. Corey noted she may not need a Grand Jury.

At this time, the investigation continues and there will be no further comment from this office.

An attorney for the Martin’s family said the evidence is there.

“We believe that she should make a decision and we’re optimistic that she will make a decision within this week,” said Natalie Jackson.

Zimmerman claims Martin attacked him and he fired in self-defense, according to Sanford police who did not charge him because of the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law which allows Floridians to use deadly force if they feel their life is threatened.

The lack of charges created a nationwide response. Dozens of rallies and demonstrations have been held demanding justice.

Monday, student protests at the Sanford Police Department forced police to close their headquarters building.

On Sunday, about 40 Florida college students and alumni wrapped up their three-day march from Daytona to Sanford Sunday evening. While they arrived at a local church triumphant, they recognized their quest for an arrest in the Martin case is far from over.

“Today is just the beginning,” said Phillip Agnew, a student demonstrator.”It is not the end. This is a marathon and not a sprint.”

The students called themselves the Dream Defenders. They walked by day and slept in churches by night hoping to draw attention to the case.

“I’ve got cuts on my ankles from the boots that I was wearing I’m exhausted you know sweating and we haven’t had showers in three days,” said another student. “But I think people feel really good about it.”

On Monday, members of the Dream Defenders plan to stage a noon time rally outside of Sen. Marco Rubio’s office in Doral. The group wants Rubio to retract his support for the “Stand Your Ground’ law and realize it needs to be changed so it can no longer be used as a legal shield in preventable shootings.
Click to expand...
Link
 
'timschochet said:
'jonessed said:
'Courtjester said:
Just announced, No grand jury. The Special Pros. will make the decision.
Click to expand...
Grand Jury indictments are slam dunks so I imagine they are going forward without them for the PR play.
Click to expand...
Which is fascinating in itself. Of course these kind of once in a lifetime cases offer prosecutors the kind of publicity they can only dream about- a stepping stone to fame and potential high office- that's how Rudy Giuliani kicked off his political career, and several other politicians as well...But there's a caveat. You have to win. If you prosecute a case like this and lose, that could be the end of your career. As witness Gil Garcetti, the LA District Attorney who decided to indict OJ Simpson. Or that guy who indicted the Duke Lacrosse players based on some very questionable testimony. Or the Santa Barbara D.A. who indicted Michael Jackson in front of a million cameras. All of these District Attorneys wanted to make the national headlines, and they succeeded. But then they lost their cases and have faced obscurity ever since. Winning is everything.
Click to expand...
I don't think how they forsee their chances at this point really mattering. The grand jury indictment would have forced their hand anyway.This case isn't going to end anyone's career. It could make a career I suppose, but the political pressure seems pretty clear. Not prosecuting is a no-win situation for them. If they take it to court and lose they gave it the college try. That certainly offers more coverage than not moving forward at all.I already know you disagree, so we can just agree to disagree. I don't see much point in arguing it.
 
'BustedKnuckles said:
another witness talks in depthhttp://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/04/07/ac-trayvon-martin-eyewitness.cnn#/video/bestoftv/2012/04/07/ac-trayvon-martin-eyewitness.cnn
Click to expand...
That's the one I saw last week who's testimony, "the bigger man was on top", is being directed at implicating Zimmerman. It's backfiring because the much taller Trayvon could/should appear to be the bigger man in the conditions described. I was specifically referring to this video when I suggested the sensationalized lies about appearances (size weight pictures) that team Martin fed to the media when this all started are going to hurt Trayvon's case. Here's a witness, sympathetic to Trayvon, telling 'her' story a month and a half after the shooting, and telling us the bigger guy was on top. They think the bigger guy is Zimmerman, and why not? The media pounded his 100 pound weight advantaged mugshot over the little kid in the Hollister shirt for a month and a half. A 6-3 160-175 pound guy in the dark almost always looks bigger than a 5-9 170 pound guy. The same thing will probably happen with voices. She makes it sound like the child's voice was Trayvon's begging for help and the angry aggressive voice she also heard was Zimmerman. I personally have little doubt Trayvon has the deeper voice. Zimmerman sounds very young on that phone call. There was audio of Tray rapping out there last week but they pulled it down. Deep voice on that young man.Any witness with an account favoring Zimmerman is living in fear. ('hint')
 
'Chaos Commish said:
'BustedKnuckles said:
another witness talks in depthhttp://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/04/07/ac-trayvon-martin-eyewitness.cnn#/video/bestoftv/2012/04/07/ac-trayvon-martin-eyewitness.cnn
Click to expand...
That's the one I saw last week who's testimony, "the bigger man was on top", is being directed at implicating Zimmerman. It's backfiring because the much taller Trayvon could/should appear to be the bigger man in the conditions described. I was specifically referring to this video when I suggested the sensationalized lies about appearances (size weight pictures) that team Martin fed to the media when this all started are going to hurt Trayvon's case. Here's a witness, sympathetic to Trayvon, telling 'her' story a month and a half after the shooting, and telling us the bigger guy was on top. They think the bigger guy is Zimmerman, and why not? The media pounded his 100 pound weight advantaged mugshot over the little kid in the Hollister shirt for a month and a half. A 6-3 160-175 pound guy in the dark almost always looks bigger than a 5-9 170 pound guy. The same thing will probably happen with voices. She makes it sound like the child's voice was Trayvon's begging for help and the angry aggressive voice she also heard was Zimmerman. I personally have little doubt Trayvon has the deeper voice. Zimmerman sounds very young on that phone call. There was audio of Tray rapping out there last week but they pulled it down. Deep voice on that young man.Any witness with an account favoring Zimmerman is living in fear. ('hint')
Click to expand...
A 5'9 170lb guy will be perceived as bigger than a 6'3 170lb guy when they are rolling around on the ground. 6'3 170 sound kind of skinny to me.
 
'Clifford said:
'BustedKnuckles said:
'jon_mx said:
'BustedKnuckles said:
Getting a broken nose and some bruised ribs or a black eye or maybe a tooth knocked out is "generally" not considered to be a life threatening injury or even a serious crippling injury no matter how much you say that hypothetically you could have gotten a detached retina from the black eye, or you could have choked to death if you swallowed that broken tooth.
Click to expand...
What about someone having their heads slammed into the ground? If there is evidence Treyvon was slamming Zimmerman's head into the ground, he got what he deserved.
Click to expand...
i seriously doubt he was
Click to expand...
Still not completely clear on this: If Zimmerman is claiming that he was getting his head slammed on the ground, and that dictated his use of force, then is it simply enough that Zimmerman says it? Does he need to take any measure to prove that actually happened? The gash on the back of his head enough or would he need corroboration by a witness?
Click to expand...
It is completely up to the defense. They just have to make the claim and provide enogh evidence to put reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury that it was murder or manslaughter. That is a pretty low bar and is why it is ridiculous ever to pursue this unless there is solid evidence which shows otherwise. I feel sorry for the prosecutor. She faces a lose-lose scenerio. She almost has to go forward with an arrest, but there simply does not appear to be enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense. Zimmerman's story will have to be completely discredited.
 
'timschochet said:
'TexanFan02 said:
'timschochet said:
'Courtjester said:
Just announced, No grand jury. The Special Pros. will make the decision.
Click to expand...
Wow. Well, that IS news. I suspect an indictment, if that is the case. If there is to be no indictment, I doubt that the prosecuter would take the responsibility solely in her hands.Or am I reading the tea leaves wrong? I honestly don't know.
Click to expand...
She said earlier that she might not need to convene a Grand Jury to bring charges.
Click to expand...
Right. The question is can you see her NOT bringing charges without a grand jury? If she has made the decision not to bring charges, and it's without a grand jury, then she is an extraordinary strong woman, willing to face vicious attacks from the press and public. (Not that she won't no matter what she does.) I admire her greatly one way or the other, and wouldn't want to be her.
Click to expand...
It means she's made the decision to charge. Grand juries provide cover for prosecutors who don't want to be the one to make the decision to whether or not to charge for controversial crimes. If she didn't think there was enough evidence to charge she'd take it to the grand jury and let them make the decision. If they say no she's covered. If they say yes she just prosecutes with what she has and puts it on the jury to decide.
 
'Chaos Commish said:
'BustedKnuckles said:
another witness talks in depth

http://www.cnn.com/v...-eyewitness.cnn
Click to expand...
That's the one I saw last week who's testimony, "the bigger man was on top", is being directed at implicating Zimmerman. It's backfiring because the much taller Trayvon could/should appear to be the bigger man in the conditions described. I was specifically referring to this video when I suggested the sensationalized lies about appearances (size weight pictures) that team Martin fed to the media when this all started are going to hurt Trayvon's case. Here's a witness, sympathetic to Trayvon, telling 'her' story a month and a half after the shooting, and telling us the bigger guy was on top. They think the bigger guy is Zimmerman, and why not? The media pounded his 100 pound weight advantaged mugshot over the little kid in the Hollister shirt for a month and a half. A 6-3 160-175 pound guy in the dark almost always looks bigger than a 5-9 170 pound guy.

The same thing will probably happen with voices. She makes it sound like the child's voice was Trayvon's begging for help and the angry aggressive voice she also heard was Zimmerman. I personally have little doubt Trayvon has the deeper voice. Zimmerman sounds very young on that phone call. There was audio of Tray rapping out there last week but they pulled it down. Deep voice on that young man.

Any witness with an account favoring Zimmerman is living in fear. ('hint')
Click to expand...
I have to compliment you, Chaos Commish. Of all the people who lean toward the "Zimmerman is innocent" side (and I'm not saying this is your conclusion, only that you are leaning in that direction) you give the most coherent, reasonable arguments in this thread. I'm not sure I agree with all of them, and obviously I'm looking at this case somewhat differently than you are (based on our statements) but you continually provide me food for thought, for which I am very grateful. :thumbup:
 
'SacramentoBob said:
'Chaos Commish said:
'BustedKnuckles said:
another witness talks in depthhttp://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/04/07/ac-trayvon-martin-eyewitness.cnn#/video/bestoftv/2012/04/07/ac-trayvon-martin-eyewitness.cnn
Click to expand...
That's the one I saw last week who's testimony, "the bigger man was on top", is being directed at implicating Zimmerman. It's backfiring because the much taller Trayvon could/should appear to be the bigger man in the conditions described. I was specifically referring to this video when I suggested the sensationalized lies about appearances (size weight pictures) that team Martin fed to the media when this all started are going to hurt Trayvon's case. Here's a witness, sympathetic to Trayvon, telling 'her' story a month and a half after the shooting, and telling us the bigger guy was on top. They think the bigger guy is Zimmerman, and why not? The media pounded his 100 pound weight advantaged mugshot over the little kid in the Hollister shirt for a month and a half. A 6-3 160-175 pound guy in the dark almost always looks bigger than a 5-9 170 pound guy. The same thing will probably happen with voices. She makes it sound like the child's voice was Trayvon's begging for help and the angry aggressive voice she also heard was Zimmerman. I personally have little doubt Trayvon has the deeper voice. Zimmerman sounds very young on that phone call. There was audio of Tray rapping out there last week but they pulled it down. Deep voice on that young man.Any witness with an account favoring Zimmerman is living in fear. ('hint')
Click to expand...
A 5'9 170lb guy will be perceived as bigger than a 6'3 170lb guy when they are rolling around on the ground. 6'3 170 sound kind of skinny to me.
Click to expand...
:lmao:
 
'Christo said:
'timschochet said:
'TexanFan02 said:
'timschochet said:
'Courtjester said:
Just announced, No grand jury. The Special Pros. will make the decision.
Click to expand...
Wow. Well, that IS news. I suspect an indictment, if that is the case. If there is to be no indictment, I doubt that the prosecuter would take the responsibility solely in her hands.Or am I reading the tea leaves wrong? I honestly don't know.
Click to expand...
She said earlier that she might not need to convene a Grand Jury to bring charges.
Click to expand...
Right. The question is can you see her NOT bringing charges without a grand jury? If she has made the decision not to bring charges, and it's without a grand jury, then she is an extraordinary strong woman, willing to face vicious attacks from the press and public. (Not that she won't no matter what she does.) I admire her greatly one way or the other, and wouldn't want to be her.
Click to expand...
It means she's made the decision to charge. Grand juries provide cover for prosecutors who don't want to be the one to make the decision to whether or not to charge for controversial crimes. If she didn't think there was enough evidence to charge she'd take it to the grand jury and let them make the decision. If they say no she's covered. If they say yes she just prosecutes with what she has and puts it on the jury to decide.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. Assuming you're correct, do you believe it means that she is in possession of more evidence in this case which we among the public are currently unaware of, and which would make it much easier for her to secure a conviction? Or do you think that she has simply looked at the evidence which we are all already privy to and decided that's enough? Because if it's the latter, that would really surprise me, since I have always agreed with you that based on what we know, it's just not enough.
 
Only on FOX - http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/08/460272/fox-orlando-affliate-calls-neo-nazis-a-civil-rights-group/

Fox Orlando Affiliate Calls Neo-Nazis ‘A Civil Rights Group’

By Judd Legum on Apr 8, 2012 at 8:34 pm

A Fox Orlando affiliate decribed Neo-Nazis as “a civil rights group” on a television broadcast and online. The group of Neo-Nazis, known as the National Socialist Movement, has been conducting armed patrols of the streets of Sanford, Florida, the town where Trayvon Marting was shot dead.

The Fox Orlando affiliate, WOFL, aired a shockingly uncritical report of the group’s activities. The Fox reporter introduced the group by saying, “There’s another civil rights group in town.” She also conducts an interview with the group’s leader, Jeff Schoep, without challenging any of his claims about the nature and mission of the group. Watch it (via Little Green Footballs):

An article with a brief summary of the segment first appeared online with the headline: “Civil rights group patrolling Sanford.” (It was subsequently removed without explaination).
Click to expand...
 
'timschochet said:
'Christo said:
'timschochet said:
'TexanFan02 said:
'timschochet said:
'Courtjester said:
Just announced, No grand jury. The Special Pros. will make the decision.
Click to expand...
Wow. Well, that IS news. I suspect an indictment, if that is the case. If there is to be no indictment, I doubt that the prosecuter would take the responsibility solely in her hands.Or am I reading the tea leaves wrong? I honestly don't know.
Click to expand...
She said earlier that she might not need to convene a Grand Jury to bring charges.
Click to expand...
Right. The question is can you see her NOT bringing charges without a grand jury? If she has made the decision not to bring charges, and it's without a grand jury, then she is an extraordinary strong woman, willing to face vicious attacks from the press and public. (Not that she won't no matter what she does.) I admire her greatly one way or the other, and wouldn't want to be her.
Click to expand...
It means she's made the decision to charge. Grand juries provide cover for prosecutors who don't want to be the one to make the decision to whether or not to charge for controversial crimes. If she didn't think there was enough evidence to charge she'd take it to the grand jury and let them make the decision. If they say no she's covered. If they say yes she just prosecutes with what she has and puts it on the jury to decide.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. Assuming you're correct, do you believe it means that she is in possession of more evidence in this case which we among the public are currently unaware of, and which would make it much easier for her to secure a conviction? Or do you think that she has simply looked at the evidence which we are all already privy to and decided that's enough? Because if it's the latter, that would really surprise me, since I have always agreed with you that based on what we know, it's just not enough.
Click to expand...
Her threshold is low. All she cares about is whether she can make an argument in court with a straight face.
 
'squistion said:
Only on FOX - http://thinkprogress...l-rights-group/

Fox Orlando Affiliate Calls Neo-Nazis 'A Civil Rights Group'

By Judd Legum on Apr 8, 2012 at 8:34 pm

A Fox Orlando affiliate decribed Neo-Nazis as "a civil rights group" on a television broadcast and online. The group of Neo-Nazis, known as the National Socialist Movement, has been conducting armed patrols of the streets of Sanford, Florida, the town where Trayvon Marting was shot dead.

The Fox Orlando affiliate, WOFL, aired a shockingly uncritical report of the group's activities. The Fox reporter introduced the group by saying, "There's another civil rights group in town." She also conducts an interview with the group's leader, Jeff Schoep, without challenging any of his claims about the nature and mission of the group. Watch it (via Little Green Footballs):

An article with a brief summary of the segment first appeared online with the headline: "Civil rights group patrolling Sanford." (It was subsequently removed without explaination).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
A little bit misleading. It's not the Fox network, it's only an Orlando affliate. Also, while I didn't see the broadcast, I'd bet anything that the broadcaster used the term "another civil rights group" with a great deal of irony. Fox is a lot of things, but pro-Nazi isn't one of them.

 
'Christo said:
'timschochet said:
'Christo said:
'timschochet said:
'TexanFan02 said:
'timschochet said:
'Courtjester said:
Just announced, No grand jury. The Special Pros. will make the decision.
Click to expand...
Wow. Well, that IS news. I suspect an indictment, if that is the case. If there is to be no indictment, I doubt that the prosecuter would take the responsibility solely in her hands.Or am I reading the tea leaves wrong? I honestly don't know.
Click to expand...
She said earlier that she might not need to convene a Grand Jury to bring charges.
Click to expand...
Right. The question is can you see her NOT bringing charges without a grand jury? If she has made the decision not to bring charges, and it's without a grand jury, then she is an extraordinary strong woman, willing to face vicious attacks from the press and public. (Not that she won't no matter what she does.) I admire her greatly one way or the other, and wouldn't want to be her.
Click to expand...
It means she's made the decision to charge. Grand juries provide cover for prosecutors who don't want to be the one to make the decision to whether or not to charge for controversial crimes. If she didn't think there was enough evidence to charge she'd take it to the grand jury and let them make the decision. If they say no she's covered. If they say yes she just prosecutes with what she has and puts it on the jury to decide.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. Assuming you're correct, do you believe it means that she is in possession of more evidence in this case which we among the public are currently unaware of, and which would make it much easier for her to secure a conviction? Or do you think that she has simply looked at the evidence which we are all already privy to and decided that's enough? Because if it's the latter, that would really surprise me, since I have always agreed with you that based on what we know, it's just not enough.
Click to expand...
Her threshold is low. All she cares about is whether she can make an argument in court with a straight face.
Click to expand...
Really? You don't think she cares about winning?
 
'timschochet said:
'squistion said:
Only on FOX - http://thinkprogress...l-rights-group/

Fox Orlando Affiliate Calls Neo-Nazis 'A Civil Rights Group'

By Judd Legum on Apr 8, 2012 at 8:34 pm

A Fox Orlando affiliate decribed Neo-Nazis as "a civil rights group" on a television broadcast and online. The group of Neo-Nazis, known as the National Socialist Movement, has been conducting armed patrols of the streets of Sanford, Florida, the town where Trayvon Marting was shot dead.

The Fox Orlando affiliate, WOFL, aired a shockingly uncritical report of the group's activities. The Fox reporter introduced the group by saying, "There's another civil rights group in town." She also conducts an interview with the group's leader, Jeff Schoep, without challenging any of his claims about the nature and mission of the group. Watch it (via Little Green Footballs):

An article with a brief summary of the segment first appeared online with the headline: "Civil rights group patrolling Sanford." (It was subsequently removed without explaination).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
A little bit misleading. It's not the Fox network, it's only an Orlando affliate. Also, while I didn't see the broadcast, I'd bet anything that the broadcaster used the term "another civil rights group" with a great deal of irony. Fox is a lot of things, but pro-Nazi isn't one of them.
Click to expand...
Video is at the link. No irony at all when the broadcaster used the term. I didn't say that FOX was pro-Nazi, however I do find it laughable for a white supremecist group to be referred to as just "another civil rights group."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'squistion said:
'timschochet said:
'squistion said:
Only on FOX - http://thinkprogress...l-rights-group/

Fox Orlando Affiliate Calls Neo-Nazis 'A Civil Rights Group'

By Judd Legum on Apr 8, 2012 at 8:34 pm

A Fox Orlando affiliate decribed Neo-Nazis as "a civil rights group" on a television broadcast and online. The group of Neo-Nazis, known as the National Socialist Movement, has been conducting armed patrols of the streets of Sanford, Florida, the town where Trayvon Marting was shot dead.

The Fox Orlando affiliate, WOFL, aired a shockingly uncritical report of the group's activities. The Fox reporter introduced the group by saying, "There's another civil rights group in town." She also conducts an interview with the group's leader, Jeff Schoep, without challenging any of his claims about the nature and mission of the group. Watch it (via Little Green Footballs):

An article with a brief summary of the segment first appeared online with the headline: "Civil rights group patrolling Sanford." (It was subsequently removed without explaination).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
A little bit misleading. It's not the Fox network, it's only an Orlando affliate. Also, while I didn't see the broadcast, I'd bet anything that the broadcaster used the term "another civil rights group" with a great deal of irony. Fox is a lot of things, but pro-Nazi isn't one of them.
Click to expand...
Video is at the link. No irony at all when the broadcaster used the term.
Click to expand...
Can't open it where I'm at. If you're right, then the broadcaster is a moron. Still say it's not representative of Fox News.
 
There is really one issue at the heart of this case. It's that what Zimmerman did, and the following about the nazis, are basically legal in Florida:

has been conducting armed patrols of the streets of Sanford

State laws basically deputize anyone who can get their hands on a gun. This needs to be about gun laws, and how they get passed in our nation and what they do. Instead it's about race, since Sanford has refused to just arrest the guy and take their chances on the self-defense claim.

This should be about the 2nd amendment. It should be about how ALEC operates, and how they got this law passed under the protest of tons of policeman in Florida. It should be about whether the laws passed by gun lobbies are actually good or bad for our nation.

 
'SacramentoBob said:
'Chaos Commish said:
'BustedKnuckles said:
another witness talks in depthhttp://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/04/07/ac-trayvon-martin-eyewitness.cnn#/video/bestoftv/2012/04/07/ac-trayvon-martin-eyewitness.cnn
Click to expand...
That's the one I saw last week who's testimony, "the bigger man was on top", is being directed at implicating Zimmerman. It's backfiring because the much taller Trayvon could/should appear to be the bigger man in the conditions described. I was specifically referring to this video when I suggested the sensationalized lies about appearances (size weight pictures) that team Martin fed to the media when this all started are going to hurt Trayvon's case. Here's a witness, sympathetic to Trayvon, telling 'her' story a month and a half after the shooting, and telling us the bigger guy was on top. They think the bigger guy is Zimmerman, and why not? The media pounded his 100 pound weight advantaged mugshot over the little kid in the Hollister shirt for a month and a half. A 6-3 160-175 pound guy in the dark almost always looks bigger than a 5-9 170 pound guy. The same thing will probably happen with voices. She makes it sound like the child's voice was Trayvon's begging for help and the angry aggressive voice she also heard was Zimmerman. I personally have little doubt Trayvon has the deeper voice. Zimmerman sounds very young on that phone call. There was audio of Tray rapping out there last week but they pulled it down. Deep voice on that young man.Any witness with an account favoring Zimmerman is living in fear. ('hint')
Click to expand...
A 5'9 170lb guy will be perceived as bigger than a 6'3 170lb guy when they are rolling around on the ground. 6'3 170 sound kind of skinny to me.
Click to expand...
I dunno. I watch a lot of MMA and the taller guys almost always look bigger to me.You can't get a good handle on sex or weight when people are wearing hoodies or jackets in the dark. Height is always obvious. I think Zimmerman would look smaller standing next to Tray any time of day though. Tray isn't just a lot taller, he has some broad shoulders on him too. Tim, I think Zimmerman is an idiot for carrying a gun. I suspect Trayvon went after him, and was kicking his butt 'a little'. Certainly not enough to be shot and killed by what us layman should consider good decision making, but quite possibly enough that a legal standard of self defense will not be beyond reasonable doubt. I wouldn't rule out a legit struggle for the exposed weapon either. I didn't respond to TF02 last night because he's right. Zimmerman ruined his own life even if he acted within the law. Even if he was in danger of grave bodily harm or death, pulling that trigger ruined his life. He may have had no choice. We don't know.
 
'timschochet said:
'Christo said:
'timschochet said:
'Christo said:
'timschochet said:
'TexanFan02 said:
'timschochet said:
'Courtjester said:
Just announced, No grand jury. The Special Pros. will make the decision.
Click to expand...
Wow. Well, that IS news. I suspect an indictment, if that is the case. If there is to be no indictment, I doubt that the prosecuter would take the responsibility solely in her hands.Or am I reading the tea leaves wrong? I honestly don't know.
Click to expand...
She said earlier that she might not need to convene a Grand Jury to bring charges.
Click to expand...
Right. The question is can you see her NOT bringing charges without a grand jury? If she has made the decision not to bring charges, and it's without a grand jury, then she is an extraordinary strong woman, willing to face vicious attacks from the press and public. (Not that she won't no matter what she does.) I admire her greatly one way or the other, and wouldn't want to be her.
Click to expand...
It means she's made the decision to charge. Grand juries provide cover for prosecutors who don't want to be the one to make the decision to whether or not to charge for controversial crimes. If she didn't think there was enough evidence to charge she'd take it to the grand jury and let them make the decision. If they say no she's covered. If they say yes she just prosecutes with what she has and puts it on the jury to decide.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. Assuming you're correct, do you believe it means that she is in possession of more evidence in this case which we among the public are currently unaware of, and which would make it much easier for her to secure a conviction? Or do you think that she has simply looked at the evidence which we are all already privy to and decided that's enough? Because if it's the latter, that would really surprise me, since I have always agreed with you that based on what we know, it's just not enough.
Click to expand...
Her threshold is low. All she cares about is whether she can make an argument in court with a straight face.
Click to expand...
Really? You don't think she cares about winning?
Click to expand...
She wins if she charges. Hell, she's a hero if she charges.
 
'squistion said:
'timschochet said:
'squistion said:
Only on FOX - http://thinkprogress...l-rights-group/

Fox Orlando Affiliate Calls Neo-Nazis 'A Civil Rights Group'

By Judd Legum on Apr 8, 2012 at 8:34 pm

A Fox Orlando affiliate decribed Neo-Nazis as "a civil rights group" on a television broadcast and online. The group of Neo-Nazis, known as the National Socialist Movement, has been conducting armed patrols of the streets of Sanford, Florida, the town where Trayvon Marting was shot dead.

The Fox Orlando affiliate, WOFL, aired a shockingly uncritical report of the group's activities. The Fox reporter introduced the group by saying, "There's another civil rights group in town." She also conducts an interview with the group's leader, Jeff Schoep, without challenging any of his claims about the nature and mission of the group. Watch it (via Little Green Footballs):

An article with a brief summary of the segment first appeared online with the headline: "Civil rights group patrolling Sanford." (It was subsequently removed without explaination).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
A little bit misleading. It's not the Fox network, it's only an Orlando affliate. Also, while I didn't see the broadcast, I'd bet anything that the broadcaster used the term "another civil rights group" with a great deal of irony. Fox is a lot of things, but pro-Nazi isn't one of them.
Click to expand...
Video is at the link. No irony at all when the broadcaster used the term. I didn't say that FOX was pro-Nazi, however I do find it laughable for a white supremecist group to be referred to as just "another civil rights group."
Click to expand...
Even more ironic that it's a black reporter saying it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
How Should Children Be Trained And Taught To Handle Bullies? (14/30)
Replies
9
Views
589
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
SpurrierisisGod
Yet another (confirmed) Cancer journey
2
Replies
88
Views
3K
Chadstroma
Chadstroma
H
Trent Dilfer interview blew me away. Very inspiring. It's a quick listen.
Replies
0
Views
419
Harry Frogfish
H

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top