Zimmerman is going to walk. Every prosecution witness except the girlfriend has been gold for the defense.
it is still early. the prosection is going to hammer zimmerman on his inconsistencies. i would not be that shocked if zimmerman ends up taking the stand before this is all over.
why did the screaming stop? if i shot someone i would be screaming for someone to call 911. that did not happen on the tapes, so that tells me that it might have been trayvon screaming prior to being shot.
i have not seen a lot of the pics, what was the blood splatter like on zimmerman? if trayvon was on top of him and zimmerman shot upwards at him, would gravity not pull the blood down on top of zimmerman? i dunno, i am just thinking out loud.
From what I've heard, read, and seen so far, the inconsistencies are very weak.I know its early and I don't know all the facts. The lead investigator said he felt Zimmerman was truthful. I'm not sure what kind of case the prosecution has left.
I don't think there would be a trial if they didn't have a reasonably good case. They may not win it, but there is a case for the prosecution. They don't just let people be dragged into murder trials when there isn't a good bit of evidence compelling them to do so.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't think there would be a trial if they didn't have a reasonably good case. They may not win it, but there is a case for the prosecution. They don't just let people be dragged into murder trials when there isn't a good bit of evidence compelling them to do so.
I think the prosecution has a shot, but Im still guessing that Zimmerman walks. Florida = :fp:
And this might be the one case where the public pressure to arrest him might have helped, so its not entirely crazy to think they went to trial over something without great evidence.
2:02 p.m. ET: Prosecutor John Guy has called chief medical examiner for Duval County, Florida Dr. Valerie Rao to the stand. Rao was brought on to the case some time after incident. She did not conduct Martin's autopsy.
2:04 p.m. ET: Rao is explaining the field of forensic pathologist to the jury. She is also explaining her work experience and education.
2:06 p.m. ET: Guy has asked Rao to explain "blunt force trauma" to the jury.
2:11 p.m. ET: Rao said Zimmerman's injuries were "insignificant." The did not require any "sutures."
2:13 p.m. ET: Zimmerman only needed some "bandaids" according to Rao.
2:16 p.m. ET: The attorneys are at a sidebar with the judge.
Rao said Zimmerman's facial injuries could have been caused by a single blow to the face. She believes the facial injuries are not consistent with someone who was punched a dozen times as Zimmerman said in the interview with Hannity that was just played for the jury.
2:18 p.m. ET: Rao said she believes Zimmerman's injuries are not consistent with someone who had their head slammed into concrete repeatedly.
2:02 p.m. ET: Prosecutor John Guy has called chief medical examiner for Duval County, Florida Dr. Valerie Rao to the stand. Rao was brought on to the case some time after incident. She did not conduct Martin's autopsy.
2:04 p.m. ET: Rao is explaining the field of forensic pathologist to the jury. She is also explaining her work experience and education.
2:06 p.m. ET: Guy has asked Rao to explain "blunt force trauma" to the jury.
2:11 p.m. ET: Rao said Zimmerman's injuries were "insignificant." The did not require any "sutures."
2:13 p.m. ET: Zimmerman only needed some "bandaids" according to Rao.
2:16 p.m. ET: The attorneys are at a sidebar with the judge.
Rao said Zimmerman's facial injuries could have been caused by a single blow to the face. She believes the facial injuries are not consistent with someone who was punched a dozen times as Zimmerman said in the interview with Hannity that was just played for the jury.
2:18 p.m. ET: Rao said she believes Zimmerman's injuries are not consistent with someone who had their head slammed into concrete repeatedly.
wow. that is another inconsistency in zimmerman's story. as i said earlier in the thread, zimmerman's injuries that i saw did not look that bad. maybe trayvon punched him one time in the face and his head went back and bounced off of the concrete one time? that is something that is possible.
Post edited by gimmesometruth27 on
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
How is that an inconsistency? Have u ever been punched in the nose hard enough for it to break?
dude i have had 9 mma fights and probably a hundred sparring sessions. i have had 3 broken noses and a zygomatic fracture, mostly from elbows and forearms, so yeah, i know what it is like to eat punches while being on my back... have you?
it is inconsistent becase zimmerman said he was hit multiple times, which this woman says is inconsistent with his injuries.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
How is that an inconsistency? Have u ever been punched in the nose hard enough for it to break?
dude i have had 9 mma fights and probably a hundred sparring sessions. i have had 3 broken noses and a zygomatic fracture, mostly from elbows and forearms, so yeah, i know what it is like to eat punches while being on my back...
it is inconsistent becase zimmerman said he was hit multiple times, which this woman says is inconsistent with his injuries.
So you know that if hit hard enough, things sometimes feels out of place. The seeing stars effect. I'm not saying that's what happened in zimmermans case, but its a possibility. As far as the ME, when cross examined, omeara got her to say that its possible that his head could have hit the concrete as many as 4 times.
During your fights, do you know exactly how many times you were hit during a flurry of punches?
All of this shows that the prosecution has a very weak case. They have to proove that Zimmerman went out seeking Martin with evil intent. From what I've heard, its not there.
I don't think there would be a trial if they didn't have a reasonably good case. They may not win it, but there is a case for the prosecution. They don't just let people be dragged into murder trials when there isn't a good bit of evidence compelling them to do so.
Let's not forget that the US Federal Gov't inserted race into this thing. I mean the President actually said that the dead guy could look like his son (if he had one). I think when the President shows that he is interested in something shit happens.
How is that an inconsistency? Have u ever been punched in the nose hard enough for it to break?
dude i have had 9 mma fights and probably a hundred sparring sessions. i have had 3 broken noses and a zygomatic fracture, mostly from elbows and forearms, so yeah, i know what it is like to eat punches while being on my back... have you?
it is inconsistent becase zimmerman said he was hit multiple times, which this woman says is inconsistent with his injuries.
Yo Last 12...9 mma fights, 3 busted noses, and 1 time eating punches held on your back are plenty, please stop.
Gotta explain a couple of facts...
1. the whole beating Zimmerman took lasted less than 15 seconds according to the witnesses.
2. Georgie-boy never lost consciences so he was moving his head and resisting getting his head bashed into the cement. So he had 15 seconds worth of lumps and cuts from the concrete.
3. the witness, named Good i think, said he saw Trayvon's arms swinging down multiple times while Zimmerman was yelling.
None of this really matters because Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong at all.
Here is the thing no one seems to get ----
The beating by Trayvon might not have killed him in itself. But there was a gun within both people's reach; if Zimmerman lost consciences....that's it....anyone would clearly believe they would be killed by THE gun.
Trayvon was wrong for not going to his Dad. He was obviously not scared. Who is more likely to seek out a fight? A tough 17 year old or a married, 27 year old, wimp? I mean really...
The cops let him go free. There is no case here; it is totally self defense.
It's interesting how the prosecution is putting all this evidence on. I think it's because they didn't want to prosecute so they are simply putting all the facts out there all of which completely back up every single aspect of Zimmerman's story. Well, it's a fact they didn't want to prosecute but hey the people insisted.
...if zimmerman is found innocent. LA riots will seem small.
what are you implying?
he's right, the chances of a riot started by the black communitys is high if zimmerman walks,history proves that.
Godfather.
Nah...Jamie Fox and Chris Rock don't have that much influence. Zimmerman did nothing wrong. I mean he did nothing wrong...all the evidence proves he did nothing wrong. Trayvon got annoyed and decided to kick some ass. Trayvon was in a rage beating Zimmerman. The punch to the nose would have been enough...he could have left at that point...but he choose to continue pummeling the crazy ass cracker. A gun appeared and if he got it he would have used it.
People may attempt to riot but it will be quickly diffused because people are reasonable. Trayvon made decisions that cost him his life. This whole thing will disperse like a big blunt hit in the air.
i don't understand how a person can stalk a child with a gun who committed no crime, shoot and kill him, then say nothing was done wrong. that's falling 30 yards short of making any sense to me. but different opinions lead to good debates, i would be the complete opposite of otter in saying that trayvon did absolutely nothing wrong and was straight up murdered. not really understanding what age or marriage has to with your view either. makes no sense. when you're 17 you're a tough goon, but when you hit late 20's and get married you're a big softy? where does that come from? hello??? trayvon was buying candy and tea, Zimmerman was stalking him with a gun? ahh but who cares he's just a big ole softy teddy bear.
if you think what I believe is stupid, bizarre, ridiculous or outrageous.....it's ok, I think I had a brain tumor when I wrote that.
i don't understand how a person can stalk a child with a gun who committed no crime, shoot and kill him, then say nothing was done wrong. that's falling 30 yards short of making any sense to me. but different opinions lead to good debates, i would be the complete opposite of otter in saying that trayvon did absolutely nothing wrong and was straight up murdered. not really understanding what age or marriage has to with your view either. makes no sense. when you're 17 you're a tough goon, but when you hit late 20's and get married you're a big softy? where does that come from? hello??? trayvon was buying candy and tea, Zimmerman was stalking him with a gun? ahh but who cares he's just a big ole softy teddy bear.
Trayvon was wrong for not going to his Dad. He was obviously not scared. Who is more likely to seek out a fight? A tough 17 year old or a married, 27 year old, wimp? I mean really...
Trayvon's not on trial for anything. He's dead. And that's a great question: who is more likely to seek out a fight? A guy with a gun and a documented recent history of calling police on "suspicious black males" or an unarmed kid walking home with candy from the convenience store? How do we know Trayvon Martin is "tough?" Because after the fact, we bystanders get to hear about his disciplinary issues etc. But on the night in question, George Zimmerman knew nothing about that. He had no idea who Trayvon Martin was. But still he followed him...
And how do we know George Zimmerman is a "wimp?" By his own words, he was taking MMA classes. Interesting then that a witness has described the fight as an "MMA-style, ground and pound..."
People forget that just because there are discrepancies about who the instigator was does not necessarily mean that State can't prove murder. In a self-defense case, the defendant has to first establish that his conduct meets the criteria for self-defense, and then the State has to rebut it. The State has charged Zimmerman with murder; the biggest element is already conceded (by virtue of Zimmerman's self-defense claim), namely, that someone is dead by George Zimmerman's hand. Zimmerman now says he was legally justified in that death. But what's the evidence that he was?
Long story short, any discrepancy about what happened in those 7-8 minutes before the gun went off could be just as detrimental to Zimmerman as it is to the State, because by virtue of his claim, he has to establish that he is not criminally culpable for boy that was killed by his gun. The evidence is clear that a kid is dead by George Zimmerman's gun. Is it clear that he acted in self-defense? Has he clearly established that he was not the aggressor? If all else stays the same, a clear jury instruction about self-defense and who bears the burden of showing what could very well result in a conviction.
Well, it's a fact they didn't want to prosecute but hey the people insisted.
How is this a "fact?" Believe it or not, prosecutors take oaths to seek justice, not convictions, and that means that they cannot proceed with a charge they don't believe is warranted.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
The defense does not have to prove self defense. The state has to prove that Zimmerman killed Martin with evil intent and malice.
False. Self-defense is what's known as an "affirmative defense," which means to establish it, the party asserting it must offer sufficient evidence showing that self-defense applies. If self-defense doesn't apply, then it's a slam dunk to show that Zimmerman is criminally liable for Martin's death. So while true that the State has the burden to prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, if Zimmerman cannot provide sufficient evidence to establish that he acted in self-defense, the State has nothing to overcome (with regard to that particular defense). Like I said, from there, it's easy to show that Martin's dead and Zimmerman shot him.
If you don't believe me, ask wikipedia.
Post edited by vant0037 on
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I should clarify, each state makes it's own standards of proof with regards to the requisite showing needed to prove a defense applies. I have no clue what Florida's is.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I'm surprised there's not more talk about the jury. I think I heard that they are all women. I thought I read somewhere that this might make it more difficult for Zimmerman.
I'm surprised there's not more talk about the jury. I think I heard that they are all women. I thought I read somewhere that this might make it more difficult for Zimmerman.
No Martin DNA on Zimmerman's gun, no Zimmerman DNA under Martin's fingernails.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
No Martin DNA on Zimmerman's gun, no Zimmerman DNA under Martin's fingernails.
I've never been punched with fingernails.
Maybe not, but I'll bet it's unusual for someone involved in a life-or-death tussle to not end up with DNA under their fingernails. Unless of course Trayvon Martin was untouched as he punched George Zimmerman (which none of the evidence suggests, from the insignicance of Zimmerman's injuries to Zimmerman's own words to the neighbors to the fact that the gun was fired from right up against Martin). I'll wager that most "ground and pound" melees result in an exchange of DNA amongst opponents in a lot areas: hands, mouths, eyes especially.
So yeah, the fact there was no Zimmerman DNA under Martin's fingernails might suggest that Martin wasn't using his fingernails to throw punches (what?), or perhaps it suggests that someone isn't being entirely honest about the nature of the fight. :think:
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
...if tm were white - this would not even be news.
If zimmerman is innoncent .. Level 10 riots of anger.
If zimmerman is guilty...level 6 riots of joy.
...savages either way.
i am pretty sure that if the details of the case, with a man in his late 20s stalking and hunting down and confronting an unarmed teenager and shooting him to death, if tm were white, it would have made the news.
i don't get why you are calling the people that are passionate about wanting justice for trayvon savages. it is insulting.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
yeah i know what that is like to see stars. you can fight through that stuff. you play defense. if the guy is on top of you you try to guard him up and pull him onto you so he can not create distance to keep raining shots down on you. either that, or you try to put your face in his chest so he can't hit you. you can fight through seeing stars because instinct takes over. you just grab onto the guy. the hard part is when you get hit in the nose and your eyes get all teary, so reflexively you close them and try to grab on to the guy. distance is a puncher's best friend and the punchee's worst enemy. if you ever watch an mma fight, the guy on top is always pushing himself away to create distance so he has enough force to maybe knock the guy out or make him submit.
if zimmerman's head hit the ground 4 times, where was the bruising? where was the contusion? the scalp and the tissue under the skin is very vascular and it bleeds a ton. even if the skin does not break, there is usually bruising and swelling under the skin. that is missing in the zimmerman pics. those were tiny wounds if his head hit the concrete that many times there should be more bruising and deeper lacerations..
yeah you know how many times you get hit in a flurry. most times. in standup, like boxing, most guys throw 2-5 punch combos at the most. most of them do not connect, so you can go in and block or slip 3 of them and feel the two that land. on your back, it is so hard for a guy to stay on top and rain down effective shots that most times you can count the ones that hit you. it takes unbelievable core/abdominal strength to stay on top of someone and punch down at the same time. but you are not worried about counting punches in a fight. you are worried about not getting knocked out. if you have any kind of training, on the bottom, you know how to put a guy in the guard, and if you are mounted you know how to get out of that. zimmerman had mma training. for him to be mounted by a kid who he outweighed by 50 lbs tells me that zimmerman was a jabroni that had no idea what he was doing. if he got mounted by trayvon and ate a bunch of shots, his instructor would throw him out of the gym for being an embarrassment to the sport. he is a wannabe, nothing more.
edit to add, today they said that zimmerman got an A in criminal justice courses, and in that course the stand your ground law was covered. he told hannity he had never heard of such a law. also, in concealed carry class, do they not tell you the self defense laws? hell, in CPR class they cover the laws, duty to act, good samaritan laws, etc, and the legalities involved. you would think the laws would be covered when it comes to carrying a deadly weapon... how on earth could zimmerman claim in a national interview to be ignorant of the law? this man is an out and out liar.
So you know that if hit hard enough, things sometimes feels out of place. The seeing stars effect. I'm not saying that's what happened in zimmermans case, but its a possibility. As far as the ME, when cross examined, omeara got her to say that its possible that his head could have hit the concrete as many as 4 times.
During your fights, do you know exactly how many times you were hit during a flurry of punches?
All of this shows that the prosecution has a very weak case. They have to proove that Zimmerman went out seeking Martin with evil intent. From what I've heard, its not there.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Insulting??? That is why we have become a land of whinners.
Far too many people unable to accept the fact that you will be insulted many times in this life.
So yes...savages base decisions on emotion or a lack of frontal lobe development.
As for the race card....
Zimmerman is as white as obama.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
Insulting??? That is why we have become a land of whinners.
Far too many people unable to accept the fact that you will be insulted many times in this life.
So yes...savages base decisions on emotion or a lack of frontal lobe development.
As for the race card....
Zimmerman is as white as obama.
we all know what it is you have been saying the last few pages about a group of people going to either celebrate or riot, you are saying the same group is going to do one or the other. i hear your dogwhistle.
what are you gonna do if zimmerman goes to jail for a long time? are you gonna call the decision bullshit? or are you gonna accept it?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
No question about its roots: White Supremacy and the Cracker Question
Posted on July 3, 2013 by djlwsu Standard
While little surprises me about CNN (Cable’s NON News), the sensational efforts to play off the George Zimmerman trial, to link the “N Word” to Cracker, and to situate the discussion within a discourse of “which is worse” is a testament to their failures as a network. As someone on Twitter and my colleague Rich King noted, the mere fact that CNN says Cracker but encodes the “N-word” tells us all we know, yet the conversation continues.
Despite amazing participants, the framing of the discussion, which centers whiteness (can’t have a discussion of “N word” without somehow bringing the debate back to whiteness), on false comparisons is telling! If CNN wanted to have a discussion to add depth to Zimmerman trial as it relates to Cracker but instead they wandered down the problematic road of “everyone is racist” and “everyone has their own slurs.”
Cracker has a long history; a longer history than America. Dating back at least to Shakespeare, the origins and meaning are disparate. Jelani Cobb, on NPR’s Code Switch, offers insight into its more contemporary usage:
“Cracker,” the old standby of Anglo insults was first noted in the mid 18th century, making it older than the United States itself. It was used to refer to poor whites, particularly those inhabiting the frontier regions of Maryland, Virginia and Georgia. It is suspected that it was a shortened version of “whip-cracker,” since the manual labor they did involved driving livestock with a whip (not to mention the other brutal arenas where those skills were employed.) Over the course of time it came to represent a person of lower caste or criminal disposition, (in some instances, was used in reference to bandits and other lawless folk.).
Despite this very specific history, one that locates cracker within history of white supremacy and one that position itself outside this history, some still try to connect Cracker with “N word” as part of its narrative on “white victimhood” and “double standards. Joan Walsh took up this line of argumentation in a recent post:
From Glenn Beck’s the Blaze to the Breitbots to smaller right-wing shriekers to Twitter trolls everywhere, white grievance-mongers seemed less bothered by the fact that Martin allegedly used the term, than by Jeantel saying it wasn’t a slur…. My God, don’t these people get tired of themselves? So much of the trumped-up racial upset on the right, generally, is about language: If black people can use the N-word, why can’t we? (Even Paula Deen tried to use that as self-defense at first.) Now we’re moving on to: If the N-word is racist and forbidden, words like “cracker” should be, too. But “cracker” has never had the same power to demean, or to exile, or to sting. No social order has ever been devised whereby African-Americans oppress people they deride as “crackers.”
Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker too articulated the absurdity of the comparison:
For those needing a refresher course, here are just a few reasons why cracker doesn’t compare to the N-word. Cracker has never been used routinely to:
Deny a white person a seat at a lunch counter.
Systematically deny whites the right to vote.
Deny a white person a seat near the front of a bus.
Crack the skulls of peaceful white protesters marching for equality.
Blow up a church and kill four little white girls.
Need more? Didn’t think so.
Cracker may be a pejorative in some circles. It may even be used to insult a white person. But it clearly lacks the grievous, historical freight of the other.
The efforts to push back at this attempt to imagine white victimhood, to reduce racism discussions to individual prejudices or slurs, to deny white privilege through noting double standards and the assault on whiteness, is nothing new. It’s central to a post civil rights discourse, which has sought to deny the structural advantages that continue to benefit white America. Tim Wise makes this clear in his piece “Revisiting a Past Essay — Honky Wanna Cracker? Examining the Myth of Reverse Racism:”
Simply put, what separates white racism from any other form and makes anti-black and brown humor more dangerous than its anti-white equivalent is the ability of the former to become lodged in the minds and perceptions of the citizenry. White perceptions are what end up counting in a white-dominated society. If whites say Indians are savages, be they “noble” or vicious, they’ll be seen in that light. If Indians say whites are mayonnaise-eating Amway salespeople, who the hell’s going to care? If anything, whites will simply turn it into a marketing opportunity. When you have the power, you can afford to be self-deprecating.
The day that someone produces a newspaper ad that reads: “Twenty honkies for sale today: good condition, best offer accepted,” or “Cracker to be lynched tonight: whistled at black woman,” then perhaps I’ll see the equivalence of these slurs with the more common type to which we’ve grown accustomed. When white churches start getting burned down by militant blacks who spray paint “Kill the honkies” on the sidewalks outside, then maybe I’ll take seriously these concerns over “reverse racism.”
So to be clear, comparing the “N-Word” to Cracker is like comparing ice cream to cardboard. Yet, both very much pivot on white supremacy. Yes, white supremacy grounds both the N-Word and Cracker. The history and origins of Cracker points to the way it seeks to normalize whiteness as middle-class, civility, and civilization. It, like White Trash (see here for great discussion), seeks to differentiate between those who are southern, those who are lower-classes, and those who don’t embody the desired inscription of whiteness. Cracker seeks to humanize white normativity. Matt Wray (cited here), writing about discourse surrounding white trash, argues:
Current stereotypes of white trash can be traced to a series of studies produced around the turn of the century by the US Eugenics Records Office… wherein the researchers sought to demonstrate scientifically, that large numbers of rural poor whites were “genetic defectives.” Typically, researchers conducted their studies by locating relatives who were either incarcerated or institutionalized and then racing their genealogies back to a “defective” source (often, but not always, a person of mixed blood) (2)
Given this history, Cracker must be understood not as anti-White per se but serving in the maintenance of white supremacy and the white power structure. It establishes a qualifier to those who are “white” who don’t embody the hegemonic vision of whiteness. It not only Others the “white poor,” furthering narratives that demonize and blame the poor across the color line, but humanizes whiteness as a category. The history of Cracker and the word itself is very much one of race, class, and caste, in which WHITES judged, policed, and categorized OTHER WHITES to determine who was truly WHITE and who was not quite WHITE. Rather than recycling the tried and trusted story of white victimization (notice how the debate about “N Word,” Cracker, Affirmative Action, the Voting Rights Act, Paula Deen, etc. always in some way comes back to a delusional sense of white victimhood), we must begin to think about the structural context, one where “whites continue to swim in preference.” Cracker isn’t simply a word or a slur but a window into America’s racial history, into white supremacy.
Comments
I think the prosecution has a shot, but Im still guessing that Zimmerman walks. Florida = :fp:
And this might be the one case where the public pressure to arrest him might have helped, so its not entirely crazy to think they went to trial over something without great evidence.
2:04 p.m. ET: Rao is explaining the field of forensic pathologist to the jury. She is also explaining her work experience and education.
2:06 p.m. ET: Guy has asked Rao to explain "blunt force trauma" to the jury.
2:11 p.m. ET: Rao said Zimmerman's injuries were "insignificant." The did not require any "sutures."
2:13 p.m. ET: Zimmerman only needed some "bandaids" according to Rao.
2:16 p.m. ET: The attorneys are at a sidebar with the judge.
Rao said Zimmerman's facial injuries could have been caused by a single blow to the face. She believes the facial injuries are not consistent with someone who was punched a dozen times as Zimmerman said in the interview with Hannity that was just played for the jury.
2:18 p.m. ET: Rao said she believes Zimmerman's injuries are not consistent with someone who had their head slammed into concrete repeatedly.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
it is inconsistent becase zimmerman said he was hit multiple times, which this woman says is inconsistent with his injuries.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
During your fights, do you know exactly how many times you were hit during a flurry of punches?
All of this shows that the prosecution has a very weak case. They have to proove that Zimmerman went out seeking Martin with evil intent. From what I've heard, its not there.
Let's not forget that the US Federal Gov't inserted race into this thing. I mean the President actually said that the dead guy could look like his son (if he had one). I think when the President shows that he is interested in something shit happens.
Yo Last 12...9 mma fights, 3 busted noses, and 1 time eating punches held on your back are plenty, please stop.
Gotta explain a couple of facts...
1. the whole beating Zimmerman took lasted less than 15 seconds according to the witnesses.
2. Georgie-boy never lost consciences so he was moving his head and resisting getting his head bashed into the cement. So he had 15 seconds worth of lumps and cuts from the concrete.
3. the witness, named Good i think, said he saw Trayvon's arms swinging down multiple times while Zimmerman was yelling.
None of this really matters because Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong at all.
Here is the thing no one seems to get ----
The beating by Trayvon might not have killed him in itself. But there was a gun within both people's reach; if Zimmerman lost consciences....that's it....anyone would clearly believe they would be killed by THE gun.
Trayvon was wrong for not going to his Dad. He was obviously not scared. Who is more likely to seek out a fight? A tough 17 year old or a married, 27 year old, wimp? I mean really...
The cops let him go free. There is no case here; it is totally self defense.
It's interesting how the prosecution is putting all this evidence on. I think it's because they didn't want to prosecute so they are simply putting all the facts out there all of which completely back up every single aspect of Zimmerman's story. Well, it's a fact they didn't want to prosecute but hey the people insisted.
Nah...Jamie Fox and Chris Rock don't have that much influence. Zimmerman did nothing wrong. I mean he did nothing wrong...all the evidence proves he did nothing wrong. Trayvon got annoyed and decided to kick some ass. Trayvon was in a rage beating Zimmerman. The punch to the nose would have been enough...he could have left at that point...but he choose to continue pummeling the crazy ass cracker. A gun appeared and if he got it he would have used it.
People may attempt to riot but it will be quickly diffused because people are reasonable. Trayvon made decisions that cost him his life. This whole thing will disperse like a big blunt hit in the air.
Godfather.
Yep.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
No, Good stated he couldn't tell for certain who was on top or bottom.
I believe that's currently up for debate before an empaneled jury.
Trayvon's not on trial for anything. He's dead. And that's a great question: who is more likely to seek out a fight? A guy with a gun and a documented recent history of calling police on "suspicious black males" or an unarmed kid walking home with candy from the convenience store? How do we know Trayvon Martin is "tough?" Because after the fact, we bystanders get to hear about his disciplinary issues etc. But on the night in question, George Zimmerman knew nothing about that. He had no idea who Trayvon Martin was. But still he followed him...
And how do we know George Zimmerman is a "wimp?" By his own words, he was taking MMA classes. Interesting then that a witness has described the fight as an "MMA-style, ground and pound..."
People forget that just because there are discrepancies about who the instigator was does not necessarily mean that State can't prove murder. In a self-defense case, the defendant has to first establish that his conduct meets the criteria for self-defense, and then the State has to rebut it. The State has charged Zimmerman with murder; the biggest element is already conceded (by virtue of Zimmerman's self-defense claim), namely, that someone is dead by George Zimmerman's hand. Zimmerman now says he was legally justified in that death. But what's the evidence that he was?
Long story short, any discrepancy about what happened in those 7-8 minutes before the gun went off could be just as detrimental to Zimmerman as it is to the State, because by virtue of his claim, he has to establish that he is not criminally culpable for boy that was killed by his gun. The evidence is clear that a kid is dead by George Zimmerman's gun. Is it clear that he acted in self-defense? Has he clearly established that he was not the aggressor? If all else stays the same, a clear jury instruction about self-defense and who bears the burden of showing what could very well result in a conviction.
How is this a "fact?" Believe it or not, prosecutors take oaths to seek justice, not convictions, and that means that they cannot proceed with a charge they don't believe is warranted.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
False. Self-defense is what's known as an "affirmative defense," which means to establish it, the party asserting it must offer sufficient evidence showing that self-defense applies. If self-defense doesn't apply, then it's a slam dunk to show that Zimmerman is criminally liable for Martin's death. So while true that the State has the burden to prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, if Zimmerman cannot provide sufficient evidence to establish that he acted in self-defense, the State has nothing to overcome (with regard to that particular defense). Like I said, from there, it's easy to show that Martin's dead and Zimmerman shot him.
If you don't believe me, ask wikipedia.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
If zimmerman is innoncent .. Level 10 riots of anger.
If zimmerman is guilty...level 6 riots of joy.
...savages either way.
that will be the topic after the verdict is read.
Godfather.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
As far as the jury goes, if I'm not mistaken, most of the jurors in the Jody arias trial were women. It may not be so bad for Zimmerman.
Edit: not Jody arias. The woman's name escapes me now who was accused of killing her kid. I believe it was in Florida as well.
Maybe not, but I'll bet it's unusual for someone involved in a life-or-death tussle to not end up with DNA under their fingernails. Unless of course Trayvon Martin was untouched as he punched George Zimmerman (which none of the evidence suggests, from the insignicance of Zimmerman's injuries to Zimmerman's own words to the neighbors to the fact that the gun was fired from right up against Martin). I'll wager that most "ground and pound" melees result in an exchange of DNA amongst opponents in a lot areas: hands, mouths, eyes especially.
So yeah, the fact there was no Zimmerman DNA under Martin's fingernails might suggest that Martin wasn't using his fingernails to throw punches (what?), or perhaps it suggests that someone isn't being entirely honest about the nature of the fight. :think:
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
i don't get why you are calling the people that are passionate about wanting justice for trayvon savages. it is insulting.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
if zimmerman's head hit the ground 4 times, where was the bruising? where was the contusion? the scalp and the tissue under the skin is very vascular and it bleeds a ton. even if the skin does not break, there is usually bruising and swelling under the skin. that is missing in the zimmerman pics. those were tiny wounds if his head hit the concrete that many times there should be more bruising and deeper lacerations..
yeah you know how many times you get hit in a flurry. most times. in standup, like boxing, most guys throw 2-5 punch combos at the most. most of them do not connect, so you can go in and block or slip 3 of them and feel the two that land. on your back, it is so hard for a guy to stay on top and rain down effective shots that most times you can count the ones that hit you. it takes unbelievable core/abdominal strength to stay on top of someone and punch down at the same time. but you are not worried about counting punches in a fight. you are worried about not getting knocked out. if you have any kind of training, on the bottom, you know how to put a guy in the guard, and if you are mounted you know how to get out of that. zimmerman had mma training. for him to be mounted by a kid who he outweighed by 50 lbs tells me that zimmerman was a jabroni that had no idea what he was doing. if he got mounted by trayvon and ate a bunch of shots, his instructor would throw him out of the gym for being an embarrassment to the sport. he is a wannabe, nothing more.
edit to add, today they said that zimmerman got an A in criminal justice courses, and in that course the stand your ground law was covered. he told hannity he had never heard of such a law. also, in concealed carry class, do they not tell you the self defense laws? hell, in CPR class they cover the laws, duty to act, good samaritan laws, etc, and the legalities involved. you would think the laws would be covered when it comes to carrying a deadly weapon... how on earth could zimmerman claim in a national interview to be ignorant of the law? this man is an out and out liar.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Far too many people unable to accept the fact that you will be insulted many times in this life.
So yes...savages base decisions on emotion or a lack of frontal lobe development.
As for the race card....
Zimmerman is as white as obama.
what are you gonna do if zimmerman goes to jail for a long time? are you gonna call the decision bullshit? or are you gonna accept it?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
No question about its roots: White Supremacy and the Cracker Question
Posted on July 3, 2013 by djlwsu Standard
While little surprises me about CNN (Cable’s NON News), the sensational efforts to play off the George Zimmerman trial, to link the “N Word” to Cracker, and to situate the discussion within a discourse of “which is worse” is a testament to their failures as a network. As someone on Twitter and my colleague Rich King noted, the mere fact that CNN says Cracker but encodes the “N-word” tells us all we know, yet the conversation continues.
Despite amazing participants, the framing of the discussion, which centers whiteness (can’t have a discussion of “N word” without somehow bringing the debate back to whiteness), on false comparisons is telling! If CNN wanted to have a discussion to add depth to Zimmerman trial as it relates to Cracker but instead they wandered down the problematic road of “everyone is racist” and “everyone has their own slurs.”
Cracker has a long history; a longer history than America. Dating back at least to Shakespeare, the origins and meaning are disparate. Jelani Cobb, on NPR’s Code Switch, offers insight into its more contemporary usage:
“Cracker,” the old standby of Anglo insults was first noted in the mid 18th century, making it older than the United States itself. It was used to refer to poor whites, particularly those inhabiting the frontier regions of Maryland, Virginia and Georgia. It is suspected that it was a shortened version of “whip-cracker,” since the manual labor they did involved driving livestock with a whip (not to mention the other brutal arenas where those skills were employed.) Over the course of time it came to represent a person of lower caste or criminal disposition, (in some instances, was used in reference to bandits and other lawless folk.).
Despite this very specific history, one that locates cracker within history of white supremacy and one that position itself outside this history, some still try to connect Cracker with “N word” as part of its narrative on “white victimhood” and “double standards. Joan Walsh took up this line of argumentation in a recent post:
From Glenn Beck’s the Blaze to the Breitbots to smaller right-wing shriekers to Twitter trolls everywhere, white grievance-mongers seemed less bothered by the fact that Martin allegedly used the term, than by Jeantel saying it wasn’t a slur…. My God, don’t these people get tired of themselves? So much of the trumped-up racial upset on the right, generally, is about language: If black people can use the N-word, why can’t we? (Even Paula Deen tried to use that as self-defense at first.) Now we’re moving on to: If the N-word is racist and forbidden, words like “cracker” should be, too. But “cracker” has never had the same power to demean, or to exile, or to sting. No social order has ever been devised whereby African-Americans oppress people they deride as “crackers.”
Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker too articulated the absurdity of the comparison:
For those needing a refresher course, here are just a few reasons why cracker doesn’t compare to the N-word. Cracker has never been used routinely to:
Deny a white person a seat at a lunch counter.
Systematically deny whites the right to vote.
Deny a white person a seat near the front of a bus.
Crack the skulls of peaceful white protesters marching for equality.
Blow up a church and kill four little white girls.
Need more? Didn’t think so.
Cracker may be a pejorative in some circles. It may even be used to insult a white person. But it clearly lacks the grievous, historical freight of the other.
The efforts to push back at this attempt to imagine white victimhood, to reduce racism discussions to individual prejudices or slurs, to deny white privilege through noting double standards and the assault on whiteness, is nothing new. It’s central to a post civil rights discourse, which has sought to deny the structural advantages that continue to benefit white America. Tim Wise makes this clear in his piece “Revisiting a Past Essay — Honky Wanna Cracker? Examining the Myth of Reverse Racism:”
Simply put, what separates white racism from any other form and makes anti-black and brown humor more dangerous than its anti-white equivalent is the ability of the former to become lodged in the minds and perceptions of the citizenry. White perceptions are what end up counting in a white-dominated society. If whites say Indians are savages, be they “noble” or vicious, they’ll be seen in that light. If Indians say whites are mayonnaise-eating Amway salespeople, who the hell’s going to care? If anything, whites will simply turn it into a marketing opportunity. When you have the power, you can afford to be self-deprecating.
The day that someone produces a newspaper ad that reads: “Twenty honkies for sale today: good condition, best offer accepted,” or “Cracker to be lynched tonight: whistled at black woman,” then perhaps I’ll see the equivalence of these slurs with the more common type to which we’ve grown accustomed. When white churches start getting burned down by militant blacks who spray paint “Kill the honkies” on the sidewalks outside, then maybe I’ll take seriously these concerns over “reverse racism.”
So to be clear, comparing the “N-Word” to Cracker is like comparing ice cream to cardboard. Yet, both very much pivot on white supremacy. Yes, white supremacy grounds both the N-Word and Cracker. The history and origins of Cracker points to the way it seeks to normalize whiteness as middle-class, civility, and civilization. It, like White Trash (see here for great discussion), seeks to differentiate between those who are southern, those who are lower-classes, and those who don’t embody the desired inscription of whiteness. Cracker seeks to humanize white normativity. Matt Wray (cited here), writing about discourse surrounding white trash, argues:
Current stereotypes of white trash can be traced to a series of studies produced around the turn of the century by the US Eugenics Records Office… wherein the researchers sought to demonstrate scientifically, that large numbers of rural poor whites were “genetic defectives.” Typically, researchers conducted their studies by locating relatives who were either incarcerated or institutionalized and then racing their genealogies back to a “defective” source (often, but not always, a person of mixed blood) (2)
Given this history, Cracker must be understood not as anti-White per se but serving in the maintenance of white supremacy and the white power structure. It establishes a qualifier to those who are “white” who don’t embody the hegemonic vision of whiteness. It not only Others the “white poor,” furthering narratives that demonize and blame the poor across the color line, but humanizes whiteness as a category. The history of Cracker and the word itself is very much one of race, class, and caste, in which WHITES judged, policed, and categorized OTHER WHITES to determine who was truly WHITE and who was not quite WHITE. Rather than recycling the tried and trusted story of white victimization (notice how the debate about “N Word,” Cracker, Affirmative Action, the Voting Rights Act, Paula Deen, etc. always in some way comes back to a delusional sense of white victimhood), we must begin to think about the structural context, one where “whites continue to swim in preference.” Cracker isn’t simply a word or a slur but a window into America’s racial history, into white supremacy.