Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

VScott

(774 posts)
Tue Mar 17, 2015, 08:06 PM Mar 2015

Gun control group opens fake gun store in NYC.

I find it amusing that when the antis make an attempt at humor (the Funny or Die PSA as an example),
they fall flat on their faces, but when they make a serious attempt, the results can be hilarious...



One thing worth noting, the 'gun store owner' is actor Ned Luke best known for his part in 'Grand Theft Auto V' ...


The game generated controversy over a mission that requires players to use torture equipment in a hostage interrogation.[187] It became subject to widespread online debate over its portrayal of women, particularly in the wake of backlash against GameSpot journalist Carolyn Petit after she claimed the game was misogynistic in her review.[188] Television personality Karen Gravano and actress Lindsay Lohan have both filed lawsuits against Rockstar in allegation that characters in the game were based off their likenesses.[189][190] Australian department store, Target, pulled the game from their 300 stores following a Change.org petition against depictions of violence toward women in the game.[191] A short time later, Kmart also removed copies of the game from all their stores.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_V#Controversies

120 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Gun control group opens fake gun store in NYC. (Original Post) VScott Mar 2015 OP
Im not sure what they are trying to prove. Travis_0004 Mar 2015 #1
... Lost-in-FL Mar 2015 #2
do they show the 300 million Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #3
I'd like to see the outtakes from that little stunt. NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #4
Looks like they stole a play from the anti-choice brigade - this sounds like a riff petronius Mar 2015 #5
Damn. Beat me to it. Has to be a lot of $ behind the effort. Blomberg? Eleanors38 Mar 2015 #9
Well, they are not as stupid as they seem. ManiacJoe Mar 2015 #6
Kookie turds always depending on fear to promote their agenda. ileus Mar 2015 #7
Fake "grassroots" org opens fake store... beevul Mar 2015 #8
Fake gun store sarisataka Mar 2015 #10
Wow that's pure propoganda Carnage251 Mar 2015 #11
Fire with fire. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #53
The rest of DU thinks differently than the gun humpers do, like usual. Electric Monk Mar 2015 #12
"Gun Humpers". Nice blueridge3210 Mar 2015 #13
48 to 3, so far. nt Electric Monk Mar 2015 #14
Which means nothing in the actual world. blueridge3210 Mar 2015 #15
Wow, they can hit the REC button Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #18
Which means dick IRL. eom. GGJohn Mar 2015 #58
Ah hypocrisy sarisataka Mar 2015 #16
and you say we insult you Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #17
If you did not find the insult in that thread you obviously did not read it Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #19
I did not see that post Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #20
How could you have not seen it? It was the post that the person you linked to was responding to. Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #21
I am all for sensible gun laws, not ineffective stupid ones Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #24
OK fine, you admit that you are a controller so I guess I will start calling you a controller Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #25
not really Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #26
Honestly I don't care what anyone calls you Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #34
Yes I know you condone the insults and name calling Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #35
As do you. Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #36
and I disagree with that Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #41
Just read this thread Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #45
You said I am a controller Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #60
I guess you are insulting yourself Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #62
well since I do not find it an insult Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #68
let me rephrase that gejohnston Mar 2015 #22
So you insult him again Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #23
no, it is an empirical issue gejohnston Mar 2015 #27
Yes, I have heard a lot worse from that side than from you Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #28
You are a George Zimmerman supporter, you have no credibility on self defense Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #33
I watched the entire trial from start to finish gejohnston Mar 2015 #37
I watched the trial too, it was bullshit Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #38
yes forensic science did prove it gejohnston Mar 2015 #40
Then provide a link to actual forensic evidence Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #44
Dr. Vincent DiMaio put you to sleep? gejohnston Mar 2015 #48
I did watch the trial, DiMaio was a paid witness for Zimmerman's defense. Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #52
he was also under oath gejohnston Mar 2015 #55
I never claimed he lied Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #59
yes, you said he lied gejohnston Mar 2015 #64
Please link to the post where I said he lied. Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #66
he gave a detailed account gejohnston Mar 2015 #70
He was a paid witness for Zimmerman's defense, that is a fact Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #72
yes he was gejohnston Mar 2015 #76
No spinning is not perjury, if you think it is then you don't understand the law Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #78
Really? gejohnston Mar 2015 #80
Yes, witnesses do spin all the time Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #81
yes, and I was the subject of that conversion gejohnston Mar 2015 #82
I watched your video, nowhere does he say that Martin slammed Zimmerman's head into the ground. Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #49
you didn't read between the lines did you? gejohnston Mar 2015 #51
You said that the lawyer admitted that Trayvon slammed Zimmerman's head into the ground Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #54
he did admit it gejohnston Mar 2015 #56
Where did he admit it? Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #57
Good got more than a brief glim gejohnston Mar 2015 #63
Where did I claim anyone was guilty of perjury? Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #69
You call Talkleft a racist site? GGJohn Mar 2015 #61
They are a site that banned Trayvon Martin supporters Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #65
If so, then I assume you can provide a link? eom. GGJohn Mar 2015 #67
were your rants there gejohnston Mar 2015 #71
I don't post at that piece of shit site Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #73
you said nothing fact based gejohnston Mar 2015 #74
No he did not admit it Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #75
he knew the cops would be there in a half minute gejohnston Mar 2015 #77
Wow you support the Zimmerman verdict???? ncjustice80 Mar 2015 #87
I support the gejohnston Mar 2015 #88
There's a thread in General Discussion with dozens of DUers "in need of being educated" by you Electric Monk Mar 2015 #105
Funny thing gejohnston Mar 2015 #107
Is it possible to have the position sarisataka Mar 2015 #110
I was on a jury like that gejohnston Mar 2015 #113
And your comment in the other group disgusts me. GGJohn Mar 2015 #89
Im sorry pushing for a safer, saner America disgusts you. ncjustice80 Mar 2015 #91
Welcome to the Gungeon. It is because of posters like that one that the GCRA Group exists. Electric Monk Mar 2015 #92
Sounds like you are inviting someone Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #101
Thank you! nt ncjustice80 Mar 2015 #102
Safer for whom? NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #93
Can you help explain, then, why Canada's rates of violent crime are so much lower? Electric Monk Mar 2015 #95
Yeah, that's an easy one, GGJohn Mar 2015 #96
You beat me to it. NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #97
So you guys are both agreeing with me, that American gun culture is a big part of the problem Electric Monk Mar 2015 #98
Frankly I think that Universal health care and *gasp* Socialism... NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #99
I totally agree with everything you wrote in this post. I think the guns matter too, though. nt Electric Monk Mar 2015 #100
given that their violent crime rates were still 1/3 gejohnston Mar 2015 #103
Yeah, safer for the criminals, whom wouldn't be impacted by any gun bans. GGJohn Mar 2015 #94
I'm sorry, but the whole "Trayvon doubled back and ambushed Zimmerman" story is total bunk. Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2015 #106
that is what the evidence shows gejohnston Mar 2015 #108
How did the evidence show Trayvon doubled back to ambush Zimmerman? nt Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2015 #109
First off, gejohnston Mar 2015 #112
But Racheal Jeantel never testifed that Trayvon told her he had made it home. Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2015 #116
Assumptions are not proof of anything gejohnston Mar 2015 #117
You poo-poo the timeline like it's nothing, but it's critical to understanding Zimmerman's actions Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2015 #118
actually we don't know any of that gejohnston Mar 2015 #119
Can I still buy the gun after hearing their spiel? bluestateguy Mar 2015 #29
chances are, they are toy guns gejohnston Mar 2015 #30
Look like replicas, not toys Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #31
That could be interesting. blueridge3210 Mar 2015 #39
No, see #10 sarisataka Mar 2015 #32
Loving the NRA is no love at all. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #43
Cabbage crates coming over the briny? sarisataka Mar 2015 #46
Loving the NRA? No one wants to watch these silly videos, empty as NRA fear mongering and doom and gloom. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #47
I still don't get your banter sarisataka Mar 2015 #50
A true progressive would be cheering anything that pisses off the gun running NRA...agreed? Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #42
That's a lot of projection in one post. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #83
Did you miss the post where Fred was appointed local Zampolit? DonP Mar 2015 #84
But don't call them "controllers" Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #85
what's with the insult Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #86
Yeah, "Controllers" is pretty rude, not like their affectionate sobriquet, "Gun Humpers" DonP Mar 2015 #114
Seems like a waste of money by the gun ban types. NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #79
I'm sure they were all well paid, not at Shannon Watt's salary level of course, but enough $$$ DonP Mar 2015 #90
Having just learned about this publicity stunt by States United, I'm still somewhat amused... derby378 Mar 2015 #104
New Yorkers are well aware that you can't simply walk into a store in the Big Apple, ... spin Mar 2015 #111
Its so transparently staged and fake that it's laughable. VScott Mar 2015 #115
Kick. beevul Jun 2015 #120
 

Travis_0004

(5,417 posts)
1. Im not sure what they are trying to prove.
Tue Mar 17, 2015, 08:22 PM
Mar 2015

If wouldnt want a glock that had been used in a suicide or murder, but I own a glock 17 and think its a great gun.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
3. do they show the 300 million
Tue Mar 17, 2015, 08:55 PM
Mar 2015

weapons not used to kill or the ones that were used for defensive purposes?

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
4. I'd like to see the outtakes from that little stunt.
Tue Mar 17, 2015, 10:55 PM
Mar 2015

We saw just very few people express the emotions they were fishing for.

How many eyerolls and off-message responses did they get?

petronius

(26,644 posts)
5. Looks like they stole a play from the anti-choice brigade - this sounds like a riff
Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:02 PM
Mar 2015

on the old 'pregnancy crisis center' scam.

Still, it seems like these 'first-time buyers' hadn't done any research at all and didn't have much idea of what owning a gun entails; if they could be put off by such a creepy stunt, perhaps it's for the best that they walked away with nothing (at least until they really do their homework, with the help of honest dealers and instructors)...

ileus

(15,396 posts)
7. Kookie turds always depending on fear to promote their agenda.
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 06:57 AM
Mar 2015

after his little spill I'd have asked to see new stock in whatever he'd just harped on.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
8. Fake "grassroots" org opens fake store...
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 02:00 PM
Mar 2015

Fake "grassroots" org opens fake store.

At least they're consistent.

sarisataka

(20,655 posts)
10. Fake gun store
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 04:12 PM
Mar 2015
pretends to sell fake guns
The shop was outfitted with about 100 unloaded, authentic-looking prop weapons (like those used in movies) and the words “Gun Store” were added above an entrance advertising “pistols,” “rifles,” “shotguns” and “used guns.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/03/17/why-this-manhattan-gun-store-didnt-actually-sell-guns/
with false claims
(customer pointing at revolver he is holding)"This is the gun the guy shot...?"
"This is the gun."

but we should just believe everything they claim? Should one trust "facts" presented through a series of lies?

Since so much went into producing this ad and the background is not readily available, can we even be sure the "customers" are not actors or otherwise compensated for their appearance in this video?

I am not even questioning the set up so much. The false front/ hidden camera has been used effectively more than once. It is the internal inconsistencies and blatant lies that call the entire setup into question.

Compare and contrast this video withe the "What Would You Do?" segments which show a variety of reactions, not just the ones that match the agenda. Also they reveal the set up and get reaction and feedback. The end interviews in this sound like they are reading off cards.

Carnage251

(562 posts)
11. Wow that's pure propoganda
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 06:26 PM
Mar 2015

And the stirring music is akin to the shit you hear illuminati conspiracy theory videos.

 

blueridge3210

(1,401 posts)
13. "Gun Humpers". Nice
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 04:04 PM
Mar 2015

Stay classy. Really, don't change a thing. The pro-control side will continue to enjoy the same level of success it has enjoyed over the last decades.

 

blueridge3210

(1,401 posts)
15. Which means nothing in the actual world.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 04:08 PM
Mar 2015

The pro-control side has been losing at the polls, in the courts and in public opinion. But, keep on going like you have been. The results speak for themselves.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
18. Wow, they can hit the REC button
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 05:04 PM
Mar 2015

unfortunately that seems to be about as much as they can do. They do not get out and actually contact their representatives or even the ATF when they tried to ban non-armor piercing ammunition.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
17. and you say we insult you
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 05:02 PM
Mar 2015
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=163634
I still have not found the insult you were complaining about in that thread.

Seems to me you just posted an insult directed at us. Care to acknowledge that fact or maybe even edit you post?

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
19. If you did not find the insult in that thread you obviously did not read it
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:47 PM
Mar 2015

Here is a direct quote from the person your link was responding to in that thread...

your knowledge of self defense issues are the same as some moron pundit on Fox or MSNBC, your opinion is worth zero."


Unless you are a fan of the moron pundits on Fox then I don't see how you can deny that this is an insult.

And your frequent use of the word "controller" to describe those who disagree with you? That is also an insult.

You like to complain about people being insulting towards you, but you sure like to prove time and time again that you are a hypocrite that is totally willing to accept the insults coming from yourself and your allies.
 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
20. I did not see that post
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 06:55 PM
Mar 2015

I do not agree with how it was stated and the poster even came back and stated he could have said it better. So "controller" is an insult? It is descriptive of what the pro gun "control" side wants to do. To control what weapons and accesories firearms owners can own. That i am sorry is not an insult, it is just a true descriptive statement. That rates rightup there with murderer, child killer, future murderer, gun humper, ammosexual amonst many other true insults from the controller side to firearms owners gere on DU.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
21. How could you have not seen it? It was the post that the person you linked to was responding to.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:05 PM
Mar 2015

Go to the Electric Monk post you linked to and look at the upper right corner where it says "Response to gejohnston" and follow the link. If that is too difficult you can click here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=163621

And sorry, but wanting some sensible gun laws does not make a person a "controller". If wanting sensible gun laws makes a person a controller then wanting sensible laws on any issue would make a person a controller. Do you support laws against putting dangerous and addictive chemicals in our food? Then you must be a controller too!

If you only apply the controller label to people who take a stance on one particular issue and don't apply the same label to people who support other laws then you are indeed being insulting.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
24. I am all for sensible gun laws, not ineffective stupid ones
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:13 PM
Mar 2015

Yep, if you want to use your definition I too am a controller. Just to a much less extent. I guess to you, I am insulting myself. I want to control who has access to a weapon. I do not want to control or ban weapons by cosmetic features. I want to control truly high capacity magazines but allow magazines under 21 rounds. I want to fully fund law enforcement and existing laws before putting more laws on the books that will not be enforced.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
25. OK fine, you admit that you are a controller so I guess I will start calling you a controller
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:17 PM
Mar 2015

I am sure you won't be insulted.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
26. not really
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:22 PM
Mar 2015

only when you like others around here call me and other DU firearms owners murderers, gun humpers, future killers, child killers, ammosexuals, looking to kill, wanting to kill. How can I forget "delicate flowers". I am sure you never will use those again will you?

Not to mention all of the sexual references directed at us. I am sure you are against that also right?

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
34. Honestly I don't care what anyone calls you
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:14 PM
Mar 2015

I am not the one who is constantly complaining about name calling while calling all my opponents controllers like you do.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
45. Just read this thread
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:07 PM
Mar 2015

You defend calling people controllers and scold someone for being insulted after he was compared to Fox News moron pundit.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
62. I guess you are insulting yourself
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:10 PM
Mar 2015

I will know from now on that whenever you speak against the "controller side" you are really talking about your own side. Sorry about your low self esteem, it is too bad you have to put your own side down so often.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
68. well since I do not find it an insult
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:19 PM
Mar 2015

I could care less.

I am just for sensible controls unlike some like you and your friends.

My self esteem is fine, thank you.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
22. let me rephrase that
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:07 PM
Mar 2015

his knowledge of self defense issues is nonexistent, therefore worth zero on those issues. His opinions of issues he knows something about is worth listening to.
Pundits, regardless of where they work, are pompous morons.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
23. So you insult him again
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:13 PM
Mar 2015

Telling a person their opinion is worth zero on issues that you disagree with them on is insulting.

I won't deny that I have said some insulting things before, but I don't try to pretend otherwise like Duckhunter is doing.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
27. no, it is an empirical issue
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:32 PM
Mar 2015

just like climate science or law. It would be foolish of me to take his or your opinions of self defense or security over, say, Massad Ayoob who is a recognized expert. If your opinions are based on ideology or something they saw in a Mel Gibson movie, it isn't an informed opinion and not worth listening to. There are a number of issues my opinion wouldn't be worth listening to because I don't know shit about it. The difference is I don't try to force uninformed opinions on others as public policy.
For example: the M855 ammo is "armor piercing". That is empirically false. Opinion doesn't matter. Evolution is a fact. Carbon-14 dating is accurate. That is empirically true. Opinions that conflict with empirical facts are not worth listening to.
Insulting is name calling (like the way I insult pundits) I insult all culture warriors equally as well. What if I said, "all due respect, but you don't know anything about the subject so I don't take your opinion seriously." Perhaps that would be the Golden Rule. I often follow the Silver Rule: Treat others as they have treated me.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
33. You are a George Zimmerman supporter, you have no credibility on self defense
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:12 PM
Mar 2015

You supported a guy who followed and shot an unarmed black kid. Your views on "self defense" are disgusting. And yes, I did watch that shameful trial. It disgusted me that our so called "justice system" is set up to protect gun toting racists like Zimmerman.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
37. I watched the entire trial from start to finish
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:23 PM
Mar 2015

I do not support George Zimmerman, I support the facts of the case as presented in court. If you watched it, you listened to prosecutor John Guy go on an emotional rant, urging the jury to ignore the evidence and "follow their heart". You also listened to the expert and eye witnesses. Unarmed does not mean what you think it means. Disparity of force is also a legal concept recognized everywhere that I know of. If someone were beating your head in the sidewalk, which has been proven by forensics and eye witnesses. Even Martin family lawyers admitted it as fact, you would do exactly the same thing.
I base all of my opinions on facts, evidence, and reason. I don't have time for those who rely on emotion and dogma. I don't listen to them either.
Since you don't know the law of anywhere, you don't know the relevant facts, that means your opinion means nothing.
Chances are, you will alert on this while falsely accusing me of being a racist. Even the liberal Talk Left agrees with me. That is who I went to for analysis because I'm not a legal expert.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/14/145748/759/Colo_News/The-Legacy-of-the-George-Zimmerman-Trial

Once again, it is empirical like climate science and evolution.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
38. I watched the trial too, it was bullshit
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:35 PM
Mar 2015

You falsely claim that forensic evidence proves that Trayvon Martin slammed Zimmerman's head into the ground, that evidence was not in the trial and you are lying your ass off when you claim that the Martin family lawyers admitted to such a thing. If you are not lying then provide a link to a reputable source, and a piece of shit site like Talkleft is not in any way reputable. They are a racist site, just because they claim to be left does not make them so.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
40. yes forensic science did prove it
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:49 PM
Mar 2015

so did the eye witness. At least it proved it to me and anyone who was watching with an honest and open mind. It wasn't his job to prove his innocence. It was Corey's job to prove it wasn't self defense. There was no evidence that it wasn't self defense, just like the lead investigator said.
Daryl Parks didn't tell Piers Morgan that Zimmerman should have let Trayvon beat the shit out of him until the cops got there? At 4:55 Parks almost slipped and said "protect" instead of "portray". It sure sounded like that to me. What evidence do you have that Talk Left is racist? You claiming that it is racist or that you actually watched and understood what was going on is hard for me to believe. I'm not going to spend anymore time with this derailment, other than point you to point nine in this article.
http://ethicsalarms.com/2015/02/22/pop-ethics-quiz-welcoming-rev-talbert-swan-late-passenger-on-the-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-ethics-train-wreck/

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
44. Then provide a link to actual forensic evidence
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:04 PM
Mar 2015

And no, eyewitness testimony and your so called "open mind" are not forensic evidence, nor are the pundits at Talk Left (earlier in the thread you called punditd morons, interesting that you are now citing pundits as evidence).

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
48. Dr. Vincent DiMaio put you to sleep?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:24 PM
Mar 2015

I found his testimony fascinating, including how incompetent Seminole County crime lab was. Who knew putting wet cloths in plastic bags for months destroys DNA?
I thought you said you watched the trial? When I said I saw the trial, I saw it first hand as in sitting in the fourth row. I didn't get anything second hand other than question answered from a legal blog.
Legal experts talking about legal issues are not the same as someone like Bill O'Reilley talking about climate science or law or Piers Morgan talking about criminology or much else beyond falsely accusing British troops of war crimes in a tabloid.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
52. I did watch the trial, DiMaio was a paid witness for Zimmerman's defense.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:31 PM
Mar 2015

Again, I asked for a link to actual forensic evidence. A witness that was paid over $400 an hour to testify on behalf of one side is not forensic evidence. Not even DiMaio claimed there was proof that Trayvon slammed Zimmerman's head into the ground however, he just tried to make a huge deal out of the fact that Trayvon was bent over when he was shot. I bend over several times a day and never once have I slammed anyone's head into the concrete when I did so.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
55. he was also under oath
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:44 PM
Mar 2015

He also has an international reputation to uphold. Both people the State put on was fired for incompetence. They were paid witnesses for the State. If DiMaio was wrong or dishonest, I'm sure Corey could have found a reputable pathologist as a rebuttal. She didn't, did she?
Like I said, it was up to Corey to prove guilt. That means you have to prove guilt BARD. You provided no evidence. So far all you have are ad hominem attacks against a progressive legal blogger and an internationally respected pathologist. You bending over has nothing to do with that night.
You might have watched it, but you don't understand concepts like "innocent until proven guilty" "State must prove their case, not the other way around".

Now, back to the fake gun store because you obviously are not capable of discussing the case based on facts, evidence, and the law.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
59. I never claimed he lied
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:00 PM
Mar 2015

Paid experts generally don't lie, but they will present a case as favorable to the person who paid them as they possibly can. Testimony of a paid defense witness is not forensic proof.

I do understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty, Trayvon Martin was never proven guilty but he got the death penalty anyways.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
64. yes, you said he lied
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:13 PM
Mar 2015

you also said John Good lied. You called Jeralyn E. Merritt a racist based on nothing.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
70. he gave a detailed account
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:39 PM
Mar 2015

yet you said "claimed to catch a glimpse". You implied that he was lying.
as for the good doctor:

DiMaio was a paid witness for Zimmerman's defense.
that implies that he lied. He also spent a couple of hours discussing the forensics. If you watched it, you would know. Where was Corey's rebuttal pathologist? Oh wait, what happened to the rebuttal witnesses?

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
72. He was a paid witness for Zimmerman's defense, that is a fact
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:48 PM
Mar 2015

You don't get to put words in my mouth, if you claim I accused someone of lying then show me a link to where I said that. I don't think DiMaio is a liar, but I do think he profited off spinning the facts in favor of a murderer which in my book is worse than lying. He is not a liar, he is just a guy who will defend murder when he gets paid enough to do so.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
76. yes he was
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:01 PM
Mar 2015

You have no idea how expert witnesses work do you? He works for both sides, including prosecution international war criminals. If the evidence didn't support the narrative, he wouldn't have taken the job. Again, you accused him of dishonesty, which is the same as lying. BTW, what about the rebuttal witness? If he was spinning bullshit, Corey should have had a rebuttal witness. There was no rebuttal witness, so I guess nobody was willing to contradict DiMaio. BTW, spinning is still lying. Therefore, you accused him of being lair under oath. That means you accused him of perjury. It seems that you don't understand this stuff you as well you think you do.
Can you dispute anything he said based on facts and evidence? You can't. That is why you stick to personal attacks.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
78. No spinning is not perjury, if you think it is then you don't understand the law
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:11 PM
Mar 2015

Witnesses spin all the time, if that were enough for a perjury conviction then convictions would happen at every trial.

While you throw stones at me however you accuse the witnesses in the Michael Brown case of dishonesty. If you believe dishonesty is perjury then by your own standards you must be accusing them of perjury yet they have not been convicted or even charged with such a crime.

If it is wrong for me to suggest dishonesty then why do you do the same thing?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
80. Really?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:29 PM
Mar 2015
Witnesses spin all the time, if that were enough for a perjury conviction.
No they don't.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/perjury
Spin from Urban dictionary:
spin
A lie which has somehow been legitimized by an uneducated public. See newspeak, doublespeak
So much spin has come out of the Republican campaign, they must be dizzy by now.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spins&defid=820245
No, they do not.
While you throw stones at me however you accuse the witnesses in the Michael Brown case of dishonesty.
I didn't, Holder did. I read the report plus the GJ transcript.
If you believe dishonesty is perjury then by your own standards you must be accusing them of perjury yet they have not been convicted or even charged with such a crime.
Johnson said it under oath, so yes I am accusing him of it. If the State didn't prosecute him of it, that is their problem, not mine.

If it is wrong for me to suggest dishonesty then why do you do the same thing?
Mine is based on facts, evidence, and reason. Yours is not. I am not accusing people of crimes based on nothing either. You are.
Now, do you have something to say that is relevant to the OP?

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
81. Yes, witnesses do spin all the time
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:50 PM
Mar 2015

That is not enough for a perjury conviction in the vast majority of cases however, if you hold such a loose definition of perjury however then go ahead and think I am accusing DiMaio of perjury, I don't care. I do think the guy is a murder defending shit bag, although I don't think that there would be much success in prosecuting him for being a murder defending shit bag. Murder defenders like you and DiMaio may be repulsive but it is not a crime to be repulsive.

As far as the topic of the OP, why don't you ask Duckhunter why he took the thread off topic when he brought you into it by scolding someone for being insulted by you comparing him to a moronic Fox News watching pundit in a different thread. This whole argument started as a response to him.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
82. yes, and I was the subject of that conversion
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:56 PM
Mar 2015

nobody speaks for me, but me. I don't speak for anyone else. First, you need evidence that they are spinning or lying. Otherwise, Not liking what they are saying isn't enough. It must be based on objective evidence. What either of us thinks doesn't matter.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
51. you didn't read between the lines did you?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:30 PM
Mar 2015

the police would be there to rescue him in a half minute? His almost gaffs? One more time:
eye witnesses saw Martin on top of Zimmerman doing a ground and pound
wounds on the back of the head and face
ground stains on the back of Zimmerman's clothes
No evidence contrary to self defense narrative?

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
54. You said that the lawyer admitted that Trayvon slammed Zimmerman's head into the ground
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:36 PM
Mar 2015

If he said it then provide a link to where he said it, a minor slip of the tongue is not an admission. Have you never had the wrong word come out when you were trying to explain something?

If eye witness testimony means so much to you I assume you believe the eyewitnesses who saw Mike Brown's hands in the air when he was shot as well?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
56. he did admit it
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:47 PM
Mar 2015

No I haven't. But then, I'm not in the habit of having to keep a false narrative straight while bullshitting someone.

If eye witness testimony means so much to you I assume you believe the eyewitnesses who saw Mike Brown's hands in the air when he was shot as well?
I did until that witness was proven to be a liar and contradicted several other witnesses and the forensics. Also, that witness was not a disinterested bystander.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
57. Where did he admit it?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:56 PM
Mar 2015

Please provide a direct quote, because I sure don't hear the lawyer making anything close to an admission that Martin slammed Zimmerman's head into the concrete in the video you posted.

By the way there were multiple witnesses to the Brown shooting, not just one. I am fine if you don't want to take them at their word but don't expect me to give any more credibility to the one person who claimed to get a brief glimpse of a struggle between Martin and Zimmerman on a dark and rainy night.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
63. Good got more than a brief glim
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:11 PM
Mar 2015
By the way there were multiple witnesses to the Brown shooting, not just one. I am fine if you don't want to take them at their word but don't expect me to give any more credibility to the one person who claimed to get a brief glimpse of a struggle between Martin and Zimmerman on a dark and rainy night.
Yes, and three made the "hands up" claim. One was there. He also told the grand jury that he saw bullets enter Brown's back, yet none of the autopsies found any bullet entrance wounds in the back. The other two admitted to changing their story to match the evidence and wasn't there.

John Good got more than "claimed to get a glimpse". He described what each person was wearing and called 911. He was also a disinterested party, something Johnson was not. Now you are accusing Good of perjury. Another ad hominem attack based on nothing. BTW, Good was a prosecution witness if you remember.

You didn't hear because you chose not to hear. Just like you slept through the evidence provided about the head wounds? Let me guess, you think Z beat his head on the sidewalk to make it look good? It is still up to you to prove guilt. Attacking prosecution witnesses isn't doing that.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
69. Where did I claim anyone was guilty of perjury?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:20 PM
Mar 2015

Eyewitness testimony is not reliable and I have no reason to take John Good's word as proof of anything. I don't know exactly what happened, but I do know that Zimmerman's claim that he had his head slammed into the concrete twenty times was not consistent with the minor scrapes he had.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
61. You call Talkleft a racist site?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:09 PM
Mar 2015

Let's see your proof of that. Or is it racist because they reach a different conclusion than you?

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
65. They are a site that banned Trayvon Martin supporters
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:13 PM
Mar 2015

Yet they allowed racist posts defending Zimmerman and portraying Martin as a thug, so yes they are a racist site.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
73. I don't post at that piece of shit site
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:51 PM
Mar 2015

My argument is a lot more fact based than yours, you falsely claimed that Martin's lawyers admitted that Zimmerman's head was bashed into the concrete yet the lawyer in the video you posted said nothing even remotely like that.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
74. you said nothing fact based
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:53 PM
Mar 2015

nor based on any evidence. He implied it, just like you implied Good was a liar. Yes he did admit it between the lines.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
75. No he did not admit it
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:56 PM
Mar 2015

You really seem to like to "read between the lines" as a way of putting words in people's mouths that they never actually said.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
77. he knew the cops would be there in a half minute
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:04 PM
Mar 2015

How would he know? Because he knew Good called 911? Listen to it closer this time. Crump and Parks hired a PR firm to make up the shit you believe. They were looking for a wrongful death pay day. They don't give a rat's ass about truth or justice. They are just two sleazy ambulance chasers in the lowest tradition.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
88. I support the
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 09:11 PM
Mar 2015

verdict based on the facts, evidence, and the law presented in court. That has nothing to do with my personal opinion of Zimmerman, the system or anything else. Given the evidence presented, any other verdict would not be proper.
The concept of using the legal system to push a political agenda disgusts me. The idea of wrongly convicting someone based on politics is not only illiberal, bigoted, and disgusting but is evil. Smearing and prosecuting an individual for politics and personal profit is evil.
Do you have something to say about the OP?
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/14/145748/759/Colo_News/The-Legacy-of-the-George-Zimmerman-Trial

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
107. Funny thing
Tue Mar 24, 2015, 09:42 AM
Mar 2015

I read one when the trial ended. They were the same ones who was attacking a lawyer, who agreed with them about guns in general, but he was pointing out the facts. If they ignore him, leading liberal legal experts like Alan Dershowitz and Jonathon Turley, they are not going to listen to me. Unfortunately, bumper sticker logic is a bi partisan problem.

http://ethicsalarms.com/2015/02/22/pop-ethics-quiz-welcoming-rev-talbert-swan-late-passenger-on-the-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-ethics-train-wreck/

sarisataka

(20,655 posts)
110. Is it possible to have the position
Tue Mar 24, 2015, 10:16 AM
Mar 2015

To believe said person is worthless scum who should be in jail yet hold that the prosecution presented the case so poorly that the jury had no objective option but to aquit?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
113. I was on a jury like that
Tue Mar 24, 2015, 01:14 PM
Mar 2015

but we didn't blame the prosecutor, we blamed the cop's poor investigation. You pick up a lot of body language between the victim and defendant. We did convict him of a misdemeanor which, we found out later, violated his parole and he was sent back to finish his 15 year armed robbery stint.

Back to this case (why are people still talking about it?) It didn't help that Corey shut down the GJ investigation to file charges. If Rick Scott would have kept his nose out and not try to get Corey re elected (she was is a Tea Party DA from Jacksonville, who needed the AA vote to get re elected. Her habit of over charging and less than stellar ethics didn't make her a favorite of anyone but the cops.) Had everyone just STFU and let the investigation go its full course................

 

Electric Monk

(13,869 posts)
92. Welcome to the Gungeon. It is because of posters like that one that the GCRA Group exists.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 10:22 PM
Mar 2015

GGJohn can't reply to you there http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262 because it is a safe haven Group and he is already blocked. In the Gungeon, where we are now, it's pretty much Fight Club some days, and tempers can rise. The two Groups have different purposes.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
101. Sounds like you are inviting someone
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 06:28 AM
Mar 2015

to post insults to another DU member in your required "safe haven" knowing the person is unable to respond to them. How very nice of you.

This group is so much more democratic than the group you host.

NaturalHigh

(12,778 posts)
93. Safer for whom?
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 10:22 PM
Mar 2015

You do know that criminals don't obey anti-gun laws, right? They love gun bans. That just means that good guys aren't carrying and are easier targets. Chicago and Washington D.C. are good examples.

 

Electric Monk

(13,869 posts)
95. Can you help explain, then, why Canada's rates of violent crime are so much lower?
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 11:33 PM
Mar 2015

with much stricter gun laws, and less gun ownership, than America has?

Murder rate per million people: 16.23 vs 42.01
3 times more than Canada

Rapes per million people: 16.88 vs 274.04
16 times more than Canada

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime

 

Electric Monk

(13,869 posts)
98. So you guys are both agreeing with me, that American gun culture is a big part of the problem
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 01:14 AM
Mar 2015

with American violent crime rates, and that more guns only increases the problem, not solve it?

Canadians watch the same movies and tv, listen to the same music, enjoy the same sports (maybe to varying degrees with some sports like hockey being more popular up north and auto racing more popular south of the border, but that could have to do with climate differences).

What cultural differences, other than gun culture, are you guys referring to? Bilingualism? Universal health care? *gasp* Socialism?

NaturalHigh

(12,778 posts)
99. Frankly I think that Universal health care and *gasp* Socialism...
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 01:41 AM
Mar 2015

would lower our crime rates considerably. So would treating drug abuse as a medical condition instead of throwing users in prison where they will be stigmatized with a felony record, possibly traumatized for life, and undoubtedly more educated in the ways of violent criminals.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
103. given that their violent crime rates were still 1/3
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 08:06 AM
Mar 2015

of ours when their gun laws were arguably less restrictive (before 1977) than ours. Even though Actually, their laws on balance are just as strict as ours, just different. For example, while handguns were more restricted there since the 1930s, machine guns were not really that restricted at all until 1977. Western Europe's murder rates were the same as they are now when they had no gun control laws and concealed carry by citizens was probably fairly common. Yes, that includes the UK.

How can you seriously say "gun culture" is the problem when most murders are gang and drug related? In places where legal gun ownership really doesn't exist? We have always had a gang problem. We have also had a political corruption problem create mutually beneficial relationships between city politicians and gangs. Canada doesn't seem to have that problem.

What cultural differences, other than gun culture, are you guys referring to? Bilingualism? Universal health care? *gasp* Socialism?
You really think something that superficial actually has an effect? Do you seriously want to bet the farm on a ad hoc logical fallacy?

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
94. Yeah, safer for the criminals, whom wouldn't be impacted by any gun bans.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 10:49 PM
Mar 2015

You really think criminals couldn't get guns if they wanted one? Our southern border leaks like a sieve, we can't stop the thousands of drugs that come across each year, so how would you stop the black market smuggling of firearms that would surely pop up to satisfy a demand?

The only ones that would be impacted by a gun ban would be those that actually obey the laws, although I suspect that any pol. party that tried that would be out on their ear for the next generation, and there would be massive civil disobedience and non compliance of such a ban.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,458 posts)
106. I'm sorry, but the whole "Trayvon doubled back and ambushed Zimmerman" story is total bunk.
Tue Mar 24, 2015, 09:29 AM
Mar 2015

And yet, in order to believe Zimmerman's side of the story, you have to take that claim at face value.

But it defies all common sense. You are supposed to believe that Trayvon started running from Zimmerman, a man he didn't know and who never identified himself. And he managed to lose him. And then we are supposed to believe that Trayvon, who spent so much time trying to escape the strange man who was following him for no apparent reason, suddenly did a 180 and decided to confront the guy he was able to get away from?

That makes no sense whatsoever. None.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
108. that is what the evidence shows
Tue Mar 24, 2015, 10:02 AM
Mar 2015

Life defies common sense. Common sense doesn't mean anything. What matters is what you can prove.
that evidence comes from the Prosecution star witness, at least that is what the media called her.

It defies common sense if the bullshit from know nothing bloggers were true. But those bloggers sold us a bill of goods. They didn't report anything correctly. As Talk Left put it, the media always gets it wrong. I thought the same as you until I watched the trial. After seeing, among other things, the lead investigator say there was no evidence that conflicted with Zimmerman's claim, John Good as eye witness (both being prosecution witnesses) describe what he saw. Then there was closing arguments. The prosecution is supposed show what they proved, not three hour emotional diatribes with no facts that included John Guy asking the jury to ignore the evidence and "follow your heart." After sitting through that and being convinced of his guilt I would have to be:
an anti Hispanic racist
a dishonest ideologue
brain dead partisan that lets ideologues do my thinking for me
fanatic hater of concealed carry

I'm none of those. I don't let morons like Cenk Uyger do my thinking for me either.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
112. First off,
Tue Mar 24, 2015, 01:04 PM
Mar 2015

there was no evidence that showed otherwise. It was the State's burden to provide evidence of that. The defense had no burden to do anything. When the prosecution says "could have" "might have" they should be ignored outright.
there is a four minute gap between Zimmerman got off the phone with the NEN operator agreeing to meet the cops at his car and the 911 calls reporting the altercation. Meanwhile, Martin was on the phone with a friend, saying that he made it to the Dad's girlfriend's house. Later, he told her that he saw Zimmerman again. the attack happened closer to Zimmerman's car than where Martin was staying. For more details, I would have to go to You Tube and watch the raw footage.

Here is the dirty little secret the right and left ignores: After Rick Scott appointed Angela Corey, she shut down the grand jury investigation and just filed charges. If Scott kept his fucking nose out, would they have found that evidence if it existed? Maybe.

BTW, is Zimmerman in the news for something? EM mentioned some discussion in GD. Since I am indifferent to him personally (why wouldn't I? I never met him nor do I actually know anything about him.), I'm not really interested in finding out.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,458 posts)
116. But Racheal Jeantel never testifed that Trayvon told her he had made it home.
Tue Mar 24, 2015, 03:32 PM
Mar 2015

She testified to the effect that he told her that he was near the house. Near being a rather general term. And if you look at a map of the area between the 7-11 and the house where Trayvon was staying, it can be reasonably argued that just about anywhere in the Twin Lakes community could plausibly be described as being "near" home.

Also, Zimmerman didn't agree to meet the police at his car as you claim. He initially told dispatch he would, but moments later he reversed himself and told them to have police call him when they were in the area. Is that significant? Absolutely. It shows that Zimmerman wasn't ready to go back to his car just yet, that he wanted to snoop around a little longer to see where "fucking punk" Trayvon went. Why else would Zimmerman make such a sudden change of mind and not simply meet police at the seemingly most logical place.

As to the location of where the altercation occurred, it's important to get a context of the Twin Lakes complex:

?ver=1334948900

When Zimmerman started chasing Trayvon, Trayvon ran into the alleyway between the homes on Twin Trees Lane and Retreat View Circle referred to at trial as the "dog walk". Now, for a proper context of events. It was dark. It was raining. Trayvon had only been staying at the Twin Lakes complex for a few days. So he's not likely intimately familiar with the details of the neighborhood, and the rain and the darkness only makes the situation worse. Twin Lakes is a townhouse complex, meaning the homes are interconnected in long blocks. From the dog walk, you only see the back of the houses. There are no street numbers, and each house likely looks very similar from the back. On the other hand, the house where Trayvon was staying was accessible on Retreat View Circle and there it would be much more readily be identifiable vis a vis the street number.

So Zimmerman starts chasing Trayvon, Trayvon runs into the dog walk. Zimmerman says he loses Trayvon. Clearly, someone who has just lost their pursuer will want to wait for a little bit to ensure the coast is clear before resuming their intended trip. And in fact Jeantel did testify that Trayvon told her he was hiding at one point. Likely after a minute or two, Trayvon assumes the coast is clear. Not being able to identify the homes from the rear, it's quite plausible that he started back up the dog walk to head toward Retreat View Circle and then home. Of course, he never makes it to Retreat View Circle, as he and Zimmerman come across each other at the T.

Now, here's my question for you. Zimmerman claimed once he was told by dispatch not to follow Trayvon, he started back to his car. The thing is, that happened roughly 4 minutes before calls about the altercation started coming into 911. Trayvon's call with Rachel ended (and she testified the phone went dead) about 3 minutes and 45 seconds after Zimmerman was told not to follow, and that's the best indication as to when the altercation between the two first started. Here's the weird thing. Zimmerman claimed he never got much further than the "T" intersection of the dog walk and the cut through between Twin Trees and Retreat View. His car was right by the cut through on Twin Trees. The altercation occurred right below the "T". That means if Zimmerman was to be believed, in the span of 3 minutes and 45 seconds he made progress towards his car of literally a couple dozen feet at most. Even if he didn't start to walk back until after he hung up the phone, he would still have roughly a minute and a half to walk back to his car. If events would have happened as he claimed, he would have been back at his car with plenty of time to spare. There's an explanation for the lack of forward progress for Trayvon. It could be inferred he was hiding out. But what's Zimmerman's excuse?

As to the burden of proof at trial, that point's moot. For better or worse (and I argue worse), the trial is over and done with. But you claim that the evidence at trial proved Trayvon double backed and ambushed Zimmerman. You were in fact wrong regarding the claim Trayvon supposedly told Rachel he had made it home. You were also wrong in claiming that Zimmerman told police to meet him at his car; in fact he told them to call him instead. And you know that Zimmerman's supposed location at the time he claimed he stopped following does not jive with the timeline.

You said there was evidence of the ambush. So what's the evidence?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
117. Assumptions are not proof of anything
Tue Mar 24, 2015, 08:22 PM
Mar 2015

and some of your facts are wrong. I may have misremembered, since it was two years and I don't think about it. Why it occupies others I have no idea. Martin ran when Zimmerman was still in the car talking on the phone. He was out of Zimmerman's sight once he got out.

It shows that Zimmerman wasn't ready to go back to his car just yet, that he wanted to snoop around a little longer to see where "fucking punk" Trayvon went. Why else would Zimmerman make such a sudden change of mind and not simply meet police at the seemingly most logical place.
It shows that it might have happened, not prove it. It also isn't evidence of who the initial aggressor was.
Here is the transcript.
http://genius.com/George-zimmerman-transcript-of-george-zimmermans-call-to-the-police-annotated

He said he went straight past the T to the other end of the block at Retreat View Circle.
There's an explanation for the lack of forward progress for Trayvon. It could be inferred he was hiding out. But what's Zimmerman's excuse?
He doesn't need one. There might have been an explanation, but I don't feel like going going through You Tube archives for Rachael to put me to sleep again. Given the number of times she contradicted herself and lies she was caught in, nothing she said really mattered. The media made her out to be the star witness.

I don't think I said the trial proved anything, I said it showed evidence. Two different things.
The end of the calls and the 911 calls were about four minutes. That doesn't mean the conflict started then. It is also irrelevant as to guilt or self defense.

The issue is who struck first and who was the first to put the other in reasonable fear of immediate death or grave bodily injury. Nobody saw it. John Good caught the middle of it, and he saw Trayvon pounding the shit of Zimmerman and Zimmerman yelling for help. Could Zimmerman have thrown the first punch? Maybe. However, he described being sucker punched to the ground and being "ground and pounded". That is also a tactic Martin said he wanted to try out in a text to a friend of his earlier. Could have Zimmerman still have thrown the first punch? Sure. However there is no doubt that Good saw Trayvon being that type of threat to Zimmerman.
776.041?Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)?Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)?Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102; s. 7, ch. 2014-195.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
What does that mean? A punch from Zimmerman to Martin would not authorize deadly force unless Martin really was a 12 year old child. Getting someone on the ground and banging his head on the sidewalk is potentially deadly force. Under Wyoming law, the sidewalk is a deadly weapon if used as such. The ground and pound becomes disparity of force. The fact that Martin was larger and in better physical shape also changes that.
The screams and struggling would fall under paragraph 1b. That would make Martin now the aggressor since Florida law does not allow counter attacks.
We don't know what actually happened other than what John Good and another witness saw. Therefore, the jury gave the correct verdict.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,458 posts)
118. You poo-poo the timeline like it's nothing, but it's critical to understanding Zimmerman's actions
Wed Mar 25, 2015, 10:31 AM
Mar 2015

The critical portion of the timeline that night:



7:09:34 – 7:13:41 — George Zimmerman calls the Sanford Police Department (SPD) from his truck; total time of the call is 4 minutes 7 seconds.[13]
7:11:33 — Zimmerman tells the police dispatcher that Trayvon Martin is running.
7:11:59 — In reply to the dispatcher's question, "Are you following him?" Zimmerman responds with, "Yes." Dispatcher: "OK, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman: "OK."
7:12:00 – 7:12:59 — The girl calls Martin again at some point during this minute.[14]
7:13:10 — Zimmerman says he does not know Martin's location.
7:13:41 — The end of Zimmerman's call to Sanford police.[14]
7:16:00 – 7:16:59 — Martin's call from the girl goes dead during this minute.[14][15] [the precise time surfaced during the trial, the call ends at 7:15:43, 1 minute and 12 seconds before the shot.]
7:16:11 — First 911 call from witness about a fight, calls for help heard.[16]
7:16:55 — Gunshot heard on 911 call.[17]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#February_19

It's also critical to keep in mind what we do know about both George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin that night:

*We know that Zimmerman had previously called police on numerous occasions to report on individuals (all black males) he deemed to be suspicious in the neighborhood, but he believed there continued to be a crime problem in the neighborhood
* We know that evening Zimmerman had a major fight with his wife, so significant that she was not staying in the house with him that night
*We know that Zimmerman called police dispatch on Trayvon Martin (a young black male) despite not having personally witnessing him doing anything illegal
*We know that despite not witnessing Trayvon doing anything illegal, Zimmerman claimed he was "up to no good"
*We know that Zimmerman said while on the phone with dispatch, "These assholes, they always get away"
*We know that Zimmerman voluntarily left his vehicle to pursue Trayvon on foot despite not having witnessed him commit any crime
*We know that Zimmerman voluntarily left his vehicle with full knowledge that he was armed
*We know that Zimmerman voluntarily left his vehicle knowing police were already on their way
*We know that Zimmerman while pursuit of Trayvon stated, "Fucking punks"
*We know that less than a half minute after Zimmerman exited his vehicle he was told by dispatch that he didn't need to follow Trayvon
*We know that in the roughly four minutes between Zimmerman being told to stand down and the approximate time the altercation with Trayvon started, he did not return to his car
*We know that Zimmerman changed his mind and told dispatch that instead of police meeting him at his car, for them to give him a call instead
*We know that in none of Zimmerman's multiple statements to police did he ever state that he identified himself to Trayvon as a member of the neighborhood watch or otherwise identify who he was
*We know that Zimmerman's injuries to his head and nose were described as "insignificant" and "not life threatening"
*We know that Zimmerman refused follow-up medical treatment for injuries to his head and nose


There's also a few things we know about Trayvon that evening:

*We know he was not engaged in any criminal activity in the neighborhood that evening
*We know he was not armed
*We know he had no prior interactions with George Zimmerman before that evening and would unlikely know who Zimmerman even was
*We know he had no reason to suspect why Zimmerman would be following him either in his car or on foot
*We know he was on his phone up to roughly a minute and a half before being shot and roughly a half minute before reports of the fight were phoned in


Now you focus in on the altercation itself and the testimony of John Good, who saw a very brief portion of the altercation (neither its beginning nor its ending). You obviously omit the testimony of Jayne Surdkya, whose 911 call caught much of the altercation and the fatal gunshot and offered an emotional live play-by-play of sorts where she identified Zimmerman as the aggressor and Martin as the individual calling for help. You also neglect to mention the fact Zimmerman claimed that his head was bashed into concrete 20-30 times even though no evidence offered by either the prosecution or defense supports such a claim.

(You also like to categorize the testimony of Rachel Jeantel as "horrible" and "unreliable" and yet several posts up, you are the one claiming that she provided evidence that Trayvon supposedly ambushed Zimmerman. So which is it here?)

Now considering all that we know about the circumstances surrounding Zimmerman that evening and the circumstances surrounding Trayvon that evening, objectively speaking, which individual is more likely to act brashly or aggressively? Is it the person being followed and chased by a stranger who never identified himself to him and for reasons unclear to him? Or is it the individual who claims someone is "up to no good" despite not having witnessed anything illegal, who mutters statements such as "These assholes, they always get away" and "fucking punks", who knowingly exits his car armed to pursue the individual who he hadn't witnessed anything illegal from despite knowing police are on their way, and who in a time period of approximately 3 minutes and 30 seconds after being told not to follow is somehow unable to return to his car that was parked only about 100-150 feet away?

The case all boils down to Zimmerman's claim that he was ambushed by Trayvon out of the blue. And from everything that we've seen, not just at trial but what's come up before and afterwards, you'd be a fool and a half to believe that claim. Everything we know about human nature screams otherwise.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
119. actually we don't know any of that
Wed Mar 25, 2015, 10:58 AM
Mar 2015

Last edited Wed Mar 25, 2015, 09:37 PM - Edit history (2)

There was a crime problem in the neighborhood. There were in fact a number of break ins and they were reported by others as black males. In fact, one witness in the neighborhood was a victim of a home invasion.
The fight with his wife wasn't relevant
Also, the timeline doesn't explain or give insight into anything. What it does do is provide space for others to speculate on, usually those who have an emotional or ideological investment in the case. Of course, these speculations are often by people who doesn't know anything about the individuals involved other than what they have been told. Sometimes from lawyers who have a financial stake or some 20 something blogger who writes on the seventh grade level and can't find Florida on the map. I don't have an investment either way. Frankly, I'm indifferent to either of these people. There are people in this event that I absolutely detest.
We don't know this

*We know he was not engaged in any criminal activity in the neighborhood that evening
*We know he had no reason to suspect why Zimmerman would be following him either in his car or on foot
*We know he was on his phone up to roughly a minute and a half before being shot and roughly a half minute before reports of the fight were phoned in
Zimmerman said he was looking in windows like he was casing a house. Maybe not criminal, but suspicious.
Now you focus in on the altercation itself and the testimony of John Good, who saw a very brief portion of the altercation (neither its beginning nor its ending). You obviously omit the testimony of Jayne Surdkya, whose 911 call caught much of the altercation and the fatal gunshot and offered an emotional live play-by-play of sorts where she identified Zimmerman as the aggressor and Martin as the individual calling for help. You also neglect to mention the fact Zimmerman claimed that his head was bashed into concrete 20-30 times even though no evidence offered by either the prosecution or defense supports such a claim.
She also said the person in dark clothes was on top. Trayvon was wearing dark clothes and Zimmerman was wearing bright orange. Surdyka said she heard more than one gunshot. There was only one shot fired. She said the one with a softer voice was screaming. Martin had a deep voice, Zimmerman as you can tell from any interview, has the more boyish voice. See her complete testimony below. She said Zimmerman was the aggressor, yet described Martin as the aggressor. That is the problem with her testimony. IOW, she made assumptions from the media.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2013/0628/Who-was-on-top-in-Zimmerman-Martin-tussle-Witness-testimony-in-conflict

The exact number isn't relevant. It could have been that many or just felt like that many. doesn't matter. There was head trauma on the back of the head. The prosecution used a Jacksonville ME to downplay the physical damage. They admitted Zimmerman's head was bashed on the concrete. The extent of the damage is not relevant, since the standard is reasonable fear of. The defense also had an ME who discussed that issue. Of course, the Jacksonville ME was an employee of Corey. So, yes the wounds were brought up.

(You also like to categorize the testimony of Rachel Jeantel as "horrible" and "unreliable" and yet several posts up, you are the one claiming that she provided evidence that Trayvon supposedly ambushed Zimmerman. So which is it here?)
Both, she contradicted herself and was caught in lies.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/6/26/223210/512/crimenews/-Rachel-Jeantel-Court-Antics-and-How-Martin-Profiled-Zimmerman

I don't know where you got your information from, but I doubt it was very accurate. I got mine from sitting in the fourth row. I bet your sources never mentioned the issue with Trayvon's phone and the IT guy that got fired for being a whistleblower.
I noticed you ignored the actual facts and the law. What I concentrated on is what is relevant.

John Good complete testimony. Notice his is unemotional and consistent with known facts, like who was wearing what jacket. He did not make assumptions.


Jayne Surdyka. Please listen to the whole thing, including Don West's cross examination. She said there were three shots, when in fact there was one. She also described Martin being shot in the back, contrary to known evidence. She also described the person in the black or gray jacket being on top. We know that was Martin wearing a black or dark gray jacket, even though she said it was Zimmerman on top. Zimmerman was wearing orange. That is why Good is given more weight than Surdyka. Notice she heard the louder voice several minutes before the confrontation. The person with the deeper voice, possibly talking on the phone. Could that be the ambush point? I had to go back and look this one up. She didn't do the prosecution any favors.

bluestateguy

(44,173 posts)
29. Can I still buy the gun after hearing their spiel?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:38 PM
Mar 2015

After the lecture can the customer say "OK, I still want to buy thee gun anyway?"

Will the store then sell it?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
30. chances are, they are toy guns
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:44 PM
Mar 2015

I don't picture these guys jumping through the hoops to get a Federal Firearms Licence plus whatever New York State and NYC require. If they are toy guns, they are also violating NYC law if they sell them.

 

blueridge3210

(1,401 posts)
39. That could be interesting.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:48 PM
Mar 2015

IIRC it is illegal in NY to sell a "toy" gun that is not a "day-glo" color. Not sure if it applies to replicas.

sarisataka

(20,655 posts)
32. No, see #10
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 07:57 PM
Mar 2015

It was all performance art.

Like the "gun shop owner"- it's all acting. He merely says what he is paid to say

“GTA allows you to tap into everything that you can’t do in real life,” said Luke in a 2013 interview with PC Advisor defending the violence in the game. “In real life, you don’t get to go out and rampage and do all these bad things. Gangster movies have been huge forever–Godfather, Casino, Goodfellas, all the way back to Jimmy Cagney. People lose themselves in the bad boy. And there isn’t anybody badder than the dudes in GTA. That’s why they’re so popular. You get to actually go out and do all these horrible things.”

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
47. Loving the NRA? No one wants to watch these silly videos, empty as NRA fear mongering and doom and gloom.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:16 PM
Mar 2015

Back to Full Ignore...nothing is nothing.

sarisataka

(20,655 posts)
50. I still don't get your banter
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:25 PM
Mar 2015

I fail to see the link between loving the NRA and pointing out this ad simply hired an actor to read their script. Same said actor previously extolled the virtues of GTA as you can actually go out and do horrible things you wouldn't in the real world.

I would similarly criticize an actor who does a PSA about sexual violence but talks about how great a game RapeLay is.


I take it you are not a Monty Python fan... I am not aware of any connection between them and the NRA.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
42. A true progressive would be cheering anything that pisses off the gun running NRA...agreed?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:56 PM
Mar 2015

I..... am cheering a lot.....the NRA is foaming at the mouth and crying...crying shame.

As an aside, ad hominem attacks are very boring and if that is all one has, one has nothing.

And have you all seen the line up of crazies at their convention...what a parade of proven clowns and grifters!

Congratulations, changing minds one at a time will get us to gun sanity.

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
84. Did you miss the post where Fred was appointed local Zampolit?
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 09:46 AM
Mar 2015

He was named "Purity Officer" for all of DU by Skinner.

He and he alone determines what a "True Democrat" and "True Progressive" is, because only he has that knowledge.

Any deviation and he will have you sent off to a Gulag for re-education.

Well, at least in his own mind he is, and it's obvious he doesn't pay much attention to the real world, so all that matters is his opinion of himself.

He comes down here to the Gungeon to get handed his hat on a random basis and after a few posts, when his errors are pointed out to him and thrown back in his face, instead of acknowledging it and actually learning something, he runs away for a week or so.

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
114. Yeah, "Controllers" is pretty rude, not like their affectionate sobriquet, "Gun Humpers"
Tue Mar 24, 2015, 01:29 PM
Mar 2015

Or other popular ones like "Gun Strokers" and "Ammosexual".

But then again they have a lot of time on their hands down in Castle Bansalot to work on rude, ignorant denigrating descriptions of people they don't agree with. It's not like they have anything else going on down there to keep them busy and productive.

I'll just have to try to be more conscious of my offensive use of the language, after all "Controllers" is such an ugly word.

NaturalHigh

(12,778 posts)
79. Seems like a waste of money by the gun ban types.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:11 PM
Mar 2015

I don't really see this changing too many hearts and minds, but hey, whatever. Bloomberg has billions to spend on this stuff, so more power to him.

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
90. I'm sure they were all well paid, not at Shannon Watt's salary level of course, but enough $$$
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 10:14 PM
Mar 2015

After all, PR savvy Shannon (Monsanto GMO's are good for your kids) Watts probably gets a pretty good payday from "Bloomie" for her efforts on behalf of the "grass roots" gun control.

With over $50 million a year from Bloomberg alone, they have bucks to throw to the peasants and the so called gun control "supporters" can stay on the couch and not have to reach for their checkbooks again.

derby378

(30,252 posts)
104. Having just learned about this publicity stunt by States United, I'm still somewhat amused...
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 07:12 PM
Mar 2015

...by what looks like some seriously self-righteous butthurt from those who are aghast that someone like me would see the video and not respond by saying, "You know what? Here's my guns. Melt them down into chains that I'll wear around my neck just like Jacob Marley did in A Christmas Carol." It's just another application of the old-fashioned guilt trip gun-control advocates like to use on the rest of society, nothing more. And gee, in New York of all places. That should have raised some red flags right there that something was amiss, because there's no Second Amendment up there.

Insanity was once defined as doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result. This looks like more of the same, but maybe with a little "shock and awe" thrown in for good measure.

spin

(17,493 posts)
111. New Yorkers are well aware that you can't simply walk into a store in the Big Apple, ...
Tue Mar 24, 2015, 12:25 PM
Mar 2015

buy a firearm and walk out of the store with it. People who live in that city are far from stupid. New York City has draconian gun control laws.

I have heard rumors that the customers were actors just like the guy behind the counter.







 

VScott

(774 posts)
115. Its so transparently staged and fake that it's laughable.
Tue Mar 24, 2015, 02:30 PM
Mar 2015

The only thing missing was Jimmy Kimmel appearing from the door behind the counter.


According to one report from Maddow...

"they didn't just let people randomly walk in off the street.
They recruited people who expressed an interest in buying a gun. Those people (did/didn't), want to
buy a gun were told they were taking part in a marketing experiment, and those were the people they sent into
that shop".


http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/03/23/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-gun-groups-are-freaking-ou/202995

A few observations...

1) They obviously didn't want anyone who had any background or knowledge with firearms going inside
to participate in their "marketing experiment". Anyone with even any casual experience with firearms
would have spotted them as fakes, stage props and would have blown the charade.

2) The location; opening a 'gun shop' right in the middle of hipster heaven. Of course one is going to
get the reactions that they're fishing for.

3) How may people were allowed into the store .vs how many were turned away because they didn't fit the mold
that would blend into their narrative?

4) The reactions are comical. More like 'are you for real, or are you trolling me, dude?' rather than horror or disgust.
How many people had no reaction at all, or laughed once they realized it was all a set-up?

5) Any 'horror and disgust' reactions were in part due to the dishonesty and deceit of the 'sales person'.
He never said 'this particular gun is identical, or the same type used by XXX to carry out YYY'.
He gave the false impression that it was the exact gun used by XXX to carry out YYY.
Some of those people probably believed that they were holding an actual murder weapon.

4) Maddow stated that the video had over 2 million hits (right now, after a week, it's a little under 3.5 million),
as if it's a viral success.

By YouTube numbers, that's kind of dismal, especially given the controversy and talk about it. More than half of those
numbers are easily coming from gun owners and firearms related websites/blogs.

The whole stunt was a joke and monumental fail.
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Gun control group opens f...