HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Maraya1969 » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1

Maraya1969

Profile Information

Member since: Tue Oct 12, 2004, 11:32 PM
Number of posts: 10,887

Journal Archives

Does anyone else think the judge in this case is getting money from the jail for each prisoner?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/27/texas-teen-makes-violent-joke-during-video-game-is-jailed-for-months/

A Texas teenager who has been in jail since March faces an eight-year prison sentence because of a threatening joke he made while playing an online video game.

In February, Justin Carter was playing “League of Legends” — an online, multiplayer fantasy game — when another player wrote a comment calling him insane. Carter’s response, which he now deeply regrets, was intended as joke.

“He replied ‘Oh yeah, I’m real messed up in the head, I’m going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts,’ and the next two lines were lol and jk,” said Jack Carter, Justin’s father, in a statement to a local news channel.
==============================================

Authorities charged him with making a terrorist threat. If convicted, he will face eight years in prison.





Kids react to controversial Cheerios ad. Great video.

http://www.upworthy.com/a-debate-over-a-controversial-ad-just-got-owned-by-a-bunch-of-kids?c=ufb1

Joe Scarborough just said, "We already have too much debt" Why is he allowed

to stay on MSNBC where most of their commentators are smart and living in the 21 century?

This guy says he has de-bunked the studies that show correlation between low IQ

and conservatism and racism. I can't understand what the Hell he is saying. Do any mathematicians know if he is just doing a 2 step of does he have anything significant here?

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5118

Sheriffs Office Admits Jurors were allowed unsupervised access during Zimmerman trial.

New Accusations Against Zimmerman Jurors As Sheriffs Office Admits It Allowed Unsupervised Access


Jurors watched television and movies, exercised at the hotel fitness center, and spent weekends being visited by family and friends.

Hold on a second. The Sheriff’s office did not take them away from their families, they had access to them over the weekend! However, they were carefully monitored to prevent jury tampering at least, right? To verify this statement, AI’s own Dr. Mark Bear contacted them, telling us:

Just verified with Heather Smith, from the Seminole Country Sheriff’s Office at 407-474-6259. She states, “Generally speaking, jurors serving on the Zimmerman trial were afforded two hours of visiting privileges with family of friends each weekend.” I asked what she meant by generally speaking,” and she states, “there were more opportunities afforded jurors but not all took advantage.”

It only takes two seconds for an inappropriate comment to be made to a juror by a family member inadvertently or otherwise to possibly affect the verdict, how they look at the case.

And, it turns out, there is evidence to find that jury tampering did happen, as Juror B37 discussed in her aborted book deal:

The potential book was always intended to be a respectful observation of the trial from my and my husband’s perspectives…

Her husband holding a perspective strong enough to write a book on the subject, given unsupervised access during the trial to his wife on the jury. Juror B37 has also admitted that the decision was reached with information not presented at the trial itself.

This is a siren bell warning of jury tampering. And this is but one juror, how much was discussed with the other jurors. The failure to supervise has now resulted in a potential legal nightmare for the state of Florida, which can be held liable for failing to properly ensure an untampered jury. Add to it the money that juror B37 could anticipate from such a book deal, which would be worth far more if given a not-guilty verdict than otherwise, and we are looking at a potential post-trial jury payoff negotiated through the husband.

Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/20/new-accusations-against-zimmerman-jurors-as-sheriffs-office-admits-it-allowed-unsupervised-access/#ixzz2Zf9LtlxF



I couldn't understand how those jurors could not grasp how all the inconsistencies, the comments

that seemed to come out of a Stand Your Ground textbook and the physical impossibility of Treyvon Martin seeing Zimmerman's gun while he was up at his armpits with his legs straddling Zimmerman and then reach for that gun only to have Zimmerman be able to get his gun which is under him, while laying on his back and having someone sitting on him. And that is just one example of the very high number of implausibilities the Zimmerman said.

Then I remembered all the people I'd read about on the net and a few in real life who insisted that Z would not get a fair trial because the jurors would be afraid of those scary black people rioting. And how Fox news was so supportive of Z and all the other conservative websites and then I remembered this study.

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract

Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.

And this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html

Why might less intelligent people be drawn to conservative ideologies? Because such ideologies feature "structure and order" that make it easier to comprehend a complicated world, Dodson said. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice," he added.
=====================================================
"Reality is complicated and messy," he told The Huffington Post in an email. "Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies."
=====================================================


So 6 conservative racist women on a jury pool might sound like a statistical anomaly but remember that racist and conservative is exactly what the defense wanted and they had professional jury pickers helping them find them. Perhaps the prosecution lost the trial right after the last juror was seated.

Basically these women could not put it together in their heads what most of us put together. They went for the simple, "too many robberies and they were all done by black men so of course a person would be suspicious of a black man walking around in the neighborhood." (although I can't find information to support that statement that all the robberies were committed by black men..........but racists and conservatives would not think to look for supportive information. The "fact" fits right into their simpleton thinking.)

And so does their inability to think abstractly and be able to "see" how Zimmerman's explanation of what happened could not possibly be true. Nor would they see all the Stand Your Ground lines he kept repeating and realize how contrived it was.

If they were all conservatives, (and remember the defense was purposely looking for them and I suspect that the prosecution did not realize the implications of those types of jurors.) then 2 little centimeters cuts on his head was the result of his head being smashed against the concrete maybe 25 times.

Anyway I hope you get my point.

The prosecution just mentioned something about Zimmerman's head wounds and the blood

so I looked at a picture and realized that if, in fact he was hurt by being bashed on the concrete the blood would have pooled around the injuries and only after he got up would the blood run down because of gravity. But there is no pooling and in this picture the cut on the left side of the back of his head shows the blood going kind of toward his ear. That is consistent with him leaning over someone.

He got these injuries while he was standing up. Also there is very little bruising. If your head is bashed against concrete you are going to have big bruises and swelling. There is no swelling either.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1064773.1334928859!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/zimmerman21n-2-web.jpg

So in arguing for an acquittal from the judge it is customary for the defense to outright LIE over

and over?

There is no evidence that does not support my client's claim that he was attacked by Trevon Martin.

The testimony of _______ proves that Trevon Martin was going to kill my client.

The testimony of _______proves that George Zimmerman did absolutely nothing wrong.

Everything said so far in this trial goes to show that my client should be granted an acquittal right now.


That is basically what this defense lawyer is saying. He is the biggest liar of them all!

Why would an EMT say a person could probably "use" stitches in their head but they'd rather not

put them in as long as you didn't mess with your head.

That is what Zimmerman just said, "She said I could use stitches but she'd rather not put them in as long as I didn't mess with my head. She didn't have to put stitches in right away.

This was from a video after the night of the shooting during the day when he was explaining he version of the events at the apartment complex.

That makes no sense to me. Are stitches inherently dangerous and one should only get them if absolutely necessary? And when ever do they say that you might need stitches in the future, (after your wound begins to heal)?


I think it is going to be easy to shoot holes in this man's statements.

Edit: I'll just stick this in here. Some conservative I know said that Zimmerman is Jewish and liberal and voted for Obama so that makes it self defense because he wouldn't have gone stalking a kid just because he was black. Pardon the stupidity of the statement but if anyone knows what Zimmerman's religion is I would love to know. I know that on Breitbart Zimmerman's brothers said that Zimmerman voted for Obama but that is worth nothing.
Go to Page: 1