Online Now 2336

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

On this Board 123
Record: 3425 (1/27/2013)

Online now 2245
Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Fantasy Sports Forum

For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion

Test/Feedback Forum

Reply

How in the world is Treyvon Martin's killer

  • PassTheRock said...

    Wrong....

    http://www.wnd.com/2007/10/44171/

    KKK's 1st targets were Republicans Dems credited with starting group that attacked both blacks, whites

    The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats. Ads by Google

    The Coming Of JesusYou Think You Know The Bible Well? Test Yourself With Our Trivia Game www.BibleTriviaTime.com

    An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

    The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbuilders and published in his book “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White,” which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.

    “Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective,” Barton said in his book. “Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings.”

    Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism, he said.

    “Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party,” Barton writes in his book. “In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.

    Nope. Your post is just more conservative revisionist history.

    Madhatter536

  • PassTheRock said...

    Wrong....

    http://www.wnd.com/2007/10/44171/

    KKK's 1st targets were Republicans Dems credited with starting group that attacked both blacks, whites

    The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats. Ads by Google

    The Coming Of JesusYou Think You Know The Bible Well? Test Yourself With Our Trivia Game www.BibleTriviaTime.com

    An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

    The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbuilders and published in his book “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White,” which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.

    “Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective,” Barton said in his book. “Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings.”

    Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism, he said.

    “Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party,” Barton writes in his book. “In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.

    You do realize that essentially there were Northern and Southern Democrats back in the day correct? Most Southern Democrats were highly conservative and became Republicans around the middle of the century.

    So technically you are correct. However, applying how today's political parties are today with how they were 70-150 years ago is disingenuous. (Additionally, most southern politicians of any political party were members of the KKK as that was about they only way they could get elected down south.)

    MSULordyoda

  • MSULordyoda said...

    (Additionally, most southern politicians of any political party were members of the KKK as that was about they only way they could get elected down south.)

    I think this part is still true.

    Roger Waters

  • R.P. McMurphy said...

    Who wants to make predictions? I'm betting Zimmerman will be arrested and tried for manslaughter.

    "The Sentinel said that Ed Primeau, a Michigan-based audio engineer and forensics expert, came to the same conclusion."

    "I believe that's Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt," Primeau says, stressing that the tone of the voice is a giveaway. "That's a young man screaming."

    if they find out that it's trayvon yelling help then that's check mate.

    AMwood ●

  • MSULordyoda said...

    I think you're missing the entire point as well.

    The investigation was botched. The lead investigator wanted Zimmerman charged with manslaughter but got overruled. Zimmerman's account has quite a few holes in it. Now in pretty much every other case the suspect would have been arrested and charged by now and all of these facts would be analyzed and played out in a trial.

    NONE OF THAT IS HAPPENING. That is the miscarriage of justice. If the thing ever goes to trial and the defense can show it was indeed self defense then so be it.

    Nope, I'm not missing any point, unlike you I actually look at the facts of this story instead of the lies and distortions perpetuated by the media. Had you done the same you would have known what you wrote is incorrect. Here is what really happened:

    "The City of Sanford later issued an alert to "clarify a statement made related to the police report."

    In part, the alert read "A reporter stated that based on the description of the incident on the report, that the officer on scene wished to have Mr. Zimmerman arrested and charged with the 'Uniform Crime Code' listed on the report. That is not accurate. All police reports from all law enforcement agencies require a 'Uniform Crime Code' to qualify an incident and for statistical purposes for tracking types of incidents. This code does not indicate a formal charge that will be lodged against an alleged offender. It is used for internal processing and to type cases.

    George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin case: Lead investigator wanted to arrest Zimmerman after shooting

    A lead investigator into the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin wanted to charge neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman with manslaughter, according to a report from ABC News.

    www.wptv.com

    fallenangle

  • A.M. wood said...

    if they find out that it's trayvon yelling help then that's check mate.

    I don't know but at this point I think any reasonable person would agree that there needs to be a very formal investigation, not only of the altercation but of the actions of the police and the state DA.

    Trayvon Martin's family asks feds to investigate - CBS News

    Lawyer for family want to know why Florida state attorney allegedly overruled police who wanted to arrest Zimmerman

    www.cbsnews.com

    I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.

    RP McMurphy

  • MSULordyoda said...

    You do realize that essentially there were Northern and Southern Democrats back in the day correct? Most Southern Democrats were highly conservative and became Republicans around the middle of the century.

    So technically you are correct. However, applying how today's political parties are today with how they were 70-150 years ago is disingenuous. (Additionally, most southern politicians of any political party were members of the KKK as that was about they only way they could get elected down south.)

    Kind of like black-skinned and light-skinned black people comparisons? yeah okay.

    My being technically correct is based on documents, voting records and history.

    Not disingenuous when we are talking about the origins of the KKK which was the original premise.

    Probably the biggest racist in terms of politicians was George Wallace from Alabama, oh he was a democrat and that is very recent history. He ran for President in 1968.

    PassTheRock

  • A.M. wood said...

    if they find out that it's trayvon yelling help then that's check mate.

    Nope--both were yelling at different times. The 13-year old witness said he saw Zimmerman on on his back yelling---"help, help." Martin looks like he is yelling (squealing) earlier in the scuffle like he was getting a finger twisted.

    The biggest key will be who used force first.

    For instance if Zimmerman asked what he was doing here, and Martin decked him and broke his nose---then Martin escalated the situation. If someone asks you a question and reaches for his cell phone, no matter how pissed or annoyed you may be or even if you are 'followed' --it still doesn't give you a right to hit or assault someone.

    PassTheRock

  • PassTheRock said...

    Nope--both were yelling at different times. The 13-year old witness said he saw Zimmerman on on his back yelling---"help, help." Martin looks like he is yelling (squealing) earlier in the scuffle like he was getting a finger twisted.

    Seriously? Both were yelling "help"? How would you see scenario breaking down? Who yelled first? If at any time during the confrontation Martin is yelling "help", then how does he end up shot?

    BTW, looks like the statements given by the 13 year old witness seem to be problematic.

    Witness' mom: Police exerted pressure - UPI.com

    A 13-year-old witness in the shooting death of an unarmed teen by a neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida felt pressured by police, his mom said.

    www.upi.com

    I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.

    RP McMurphy

  • R.P. McMurphy said...

    Seriously? Both were yelling "help"? How would you see scenario breaking down? Who yelled first? If at any time during the confrontation Martin is yelling "help", then how does he end up shot?

    BTW, looks like the statements given by the 13 year old witness seem to be problematic.

    Not problematic---this is a 13-year old not a 6-year old---

    They simply asked him what color shirt on the guy had on who was on the bottom ---'black, white or red'?

    He picked red, which matched the police reports of Zimmerman's back side being completely wet and covered in grass.

    I think witnesses are afraid and I don't blame them.

    Had he said black or white, then you could stretch that to say he was talking about skin. Red is not going to work if he is prosecuted.

    PassTheRock

  • this whole case is fucked now and a lot of that lies on the media and everyone's need to form an opinion on it before they even know anything about it. the media is so concerned about making it a big story and having all the breaking news and facts that they dont care what they put out whether its right, wrong or didn't even happen. then you have people like the reverend showing up to try and divide america and start a race war and that's all over the news. if the cops could just do their job and not constantly have people putting out every fact of the case it would be a lot easier. that would assume you have cops capable of doing their job without a predetermined outcome. the bottom line is no one should speculate or say anything until the process is done. the prosecution wont want to rush to trial without the proper evidence needed to make a good case because if they screw it up its over if he really is guilty. the outrage will be unreal if they go to trial unprepared to make the best case they can.

    spartanfan25

  • PassTheRock said...

    Not problematic---this is a 13-year old not a 6-year old---

    They simply asked him what color shirt on the guy had on who was on the bottom ---'black, white or red'?

    He picked red, which matched the police reports of Zimmerman's back side being completely wet and covered in grass.

    I think witnesses are afraid and I don't blame them.

    Had he said black or white, then you could stretch that to say he was talking about skin. Red is not going to work if he is prosecuted.

    Yeah, very problematic. He's already contradicted himself. In one account it's too dark to see what's happening, in another he can see something, but he's not really sure. He can't ID colors independently, but given a multiple choice question, he makes a guess. I'm no big city lawyer, but that seems pretty problematic to me.

    Oh and BTW, he's 13.

    Still curious about how you see the "both people were screaming for help" scenario possibly playing out. How did you form that theory? What recordings are you referring to?

    This post was edited by RP McMurphy on 4/2/2012 at 10:52 AM

    I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.

    RP McMurphy

  • R.P. McMurphy said...

    Yeah, very problematic. He's already contradicted himself. In one account it's too dark to see what's happening, in another he can see something, but he's not really sure. He can't ID colors independently, but given a multiple choice question, he makes a guess. I'm no big city lawyer, but that seems pretty problematic to me.

    Oh and BTW, he's 13.

    13---is not that that young.

    No question you can't pick out skin color, but why would you guess that person on the bottom wore red, which by the way, is consistent with police reports of Zimmerman being wet and grass-stained on his back side? It sounds like he is backing down for other reasons.

    So he did not contradict himself, the difference between race and colors is two different things.

    PassTheRock

  • PassTheRock said...

    So he did not contradict himself,

    Yes he did.

    "Police in Sanford have said Austin Brown, who was walking his dog Feb. 26 near where the shooting occurred, saw the younger Zimmerman lying in the grass crying for help just before the slaying. However, the boy's mother, Cheryl Brown, told the Daily News when police interviewed her son later, he told them he saw only one person lying in the grass and he couldn't tell who it was.

    "He kept telling them he couldn't see anything because it was too dark," she said. "He said he couldn't see the race or anything. He never saw a second person."

    Still curious about how you see the "both people were screaming for help" scenario possibly playing out. How did you form that theory? What recordings are you referring to?

    I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.

    RP McMurphy

  • R.P. McMurphy said...

    Yeah, very problematic. He's already contradicted himself. In one account it's too dark to see what's happening, in another he can see something, but he's not really sure. He can't ID colors independently, but given a multiple choice question, he makes a guess. I'm no big city lawyer, but that seems pretty problematic to me.

    Oh and BTW, he's 13.

    Still curious about how you see the "both people were screaming for help" scenario possibly playing out. How did you form that theory? What recordings are you referring to?

    From the evidence and police reports---

    1. It appears that the squealing is probably form Martin early on. At this time it is only a 48% match to Zimmerman according to voice analyzers.

    2. Also , Zimmerman said he as yelling 'help, help' on his back, which also matches what the 13-year old was saying. Zimmerman never met the 13-year old but they said the same thing.

    The police aren't going to roll with the guy on the bottom was wearing red unless they are sure.

    PassTheRock

  • fallenangle said...

    Nope, I'm not missing any point, unlike you I actually look at the facts of this story instead of the lies and distortions perpetuated by the media. Had you done the same you would have known what you wrote is incorrect. Here is what really happened:

    "The City of Sanford later issued an alert to "clarify a statement made related to the police report."

    In part, the alert read "A reporter stated that based on the description of the incident on the report, that the officer on scene wished to have Mr. Zimmerman arrested and charged with the 'Uniform Crime Code' listed on the report. That is not accurate. All police reports from all law enforcement agencies require a 'Uniform Crime Code' to qualify an incident and for statistical purposes for tracking types of incidents. This code does not indicate a formal charge that will be lodged against an alleged offender. It is used for internal processing and to type cases.

    Fair enough.

    But let me ask you these questions.

    Do you need to see every shred of evidence that shows he's 100% guilty before we let the judicial system decide?

    Or do we use what evidence we have to realize that not everything necessarily adds up with Zimmerman's account and put it before a judge and jury to decide?

    You want to villify those demanding he go to trial as already convicting him yet you feel like he should walk away without even a trial because he said he did it in self defense and that's good enough for you.

    MSULordyoda

  • PassTheRock said...

    From the evidence and police reports---

    1. It appears that the squealing is probably form Martin early on. At this time it is only a 48% match to Zimmerman according to voice analyzers.

    2. Also , Zimmerman said he as yelling 'help, help' on his back, which also matches what the 13-year old was saying. Zimmerman never met the 13-year old but they said the same thing.

    The police aren't going to roll with the guy on the bottom was wearing red unless they are sure.

    The "squealing"? No, the cries for help. That's what's been analyzed and the experts say it's not Zimmerman. As far as I know, we have recordings of only ONE person crying for help. And it's not Zimmerman, despite his claims otherwise.

    If Treyvon was the aggressor and was bashing Zimmerman's head into the cement, why would Treyvon cry for help?

    So I'll ask again, where does your theory that two people were crying for help come from?

    I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.

    RP McMurphy

  • R.P. McMurphy said...

    Yes he did.

    "Police in Sanford have said Austin Brown, who was walking his dog Feb. 26 near where the shooting occurred, saw the younger Zimmerman lying in the grass crying for help just before the slaying. However, the boy's mother, Cheryl Brown, told the Daily News when police interviewed her son later, he told them he saw only one person lying in the grass and he couldn't tell who it was.

    "He kept telling them he couldn't see anything because it was too dark," she said. "He said he couldn't see the race or anything. He never saw a second person."

    Still curious about how you see the "both people were screaming for help" scenario possibly playing out. How did you form that theory? What recordings are you referring to?

    Nope, HE still did not contradict himself despite what his mother may have told the media

    fallenangle

  • MSULordyoda said...

    Fair enough.

    But let me ask you these questions.

    Do you need to see every shred of evidence that shows he's 100% guilty before we let the judicial system decide?

    Or do we use what evidence we have to realize that not everything necessarily adds up with Zimmerman's account and put it before a judge and jury to decide?

    You want to villify those demanding he go to trial as already convicting him yet you feel like he should walk away without even a trial because he said he did it in self defense and that's good enough for you.

    I don't need to see any piece of evidence, nor do we...that should be left up to the police, investigators, DA's and grand juries if necessary. How many cases in the US do you think get sent to the DA's office for recommendation of prosecution that don't end up going to court? Quite a few I'm sure, so why should this be any different? You've heard of double jeopardy, right? If you really want justice to ultimately prevail then you and everyone else should allow for due process and quit convicting him in the court of public opinion.

    fallenangle

  • fallenangle said...

    Nope, HE still did not contradict himself despite what his mother may have told the media

    Well, whatever you want to call giving two or more accounts of the same situation.

    I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.

    RP McMurphy

  • fallenangle said...

    If you really want justice to ultimately prevail then you and everyone else should allow for due process and quit convicting him in the court of public opinion.

    Are you talking about Zimmerman or Martin? both? Because you seem heavily biased on one side of the argument.

    I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.

    RP McMurphy

  • R.P. McMurphy said...

    Well, whatever you want to call giving two or more accounts of the same situation.

    You said he contradicted himself. He didn't, so therefore you are wrong. Just like you continue to be wrong in saying the lead detective wanted him arrested for manslaughter because he didn't believe the self-defense story

    fallenangle

  • fallenangle said...

    You said he contradicted himself. He didn't, so therefore you are wrong. Just like you continue to be wrong in saying the lead detective wanted him arrested for manslaughter because he didn't believe the self-defense story

    Well, based on the normal use of the word contradict, yes he did. He has given contradicting statements about what he saw that night. In one version it's too dark to see anything, in another he guesses at the color of a person's clothing when given a multiple choice. It also isn't clear about how many people he saw.

    As far as what I've said about the lead detective, help me out here and quote what I've said. Thanks.

    I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.

    RP McMurphy

  • PassTheRock said...

    Wrong....

    http://www.wnd.com/2007/10/44171/

    KKK's 1st targets were Republicans Dems credited with starting group that attacked both blacks, whites

    The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats. Ads by Google

    The Coming Of JesusYou Think You Know The Bible Well? Test Yourself With Our Trivia Game www.BibleTriviaTime.com

    An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

    The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbuilders and published in his book “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White,” which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.

    “Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective,” Barton said in his book. “Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings.”

    Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism, he said.

    “Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party,” Barton writes in his book. “In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.

    Racists - still wearing hoods, still Democrats.

    Green Note

  • R.P. McMurphy said...

    Yes he did.

    "Police in Sanford have said Austin Brown, who was walking his dog Feb. 26 near where the shooting occurred, saw the younger Zimmerman lying in the grass crying for help just before the slaying. However, the boy's mother, Cheryl Brown, told the Daily News when police interviewed her son later, he told them he saw only one person lying in the grass and he couldn't tell who it was.

    "He kept telling them he couldn't see anything because it was too dark," she said. "He said he couldn't see the race or anything. He never saw a second person."

    Still curious about how you see the "both people were screaming for help" scenario possibly playing out. How did you form that theory? What recordings are you referring to?

    Yeah i read it the first time, and since when is Zimmerman younger?

    1. The moms first point of emphasis was race. "He said he couldn't see the race or anything."

    Well---it would be difficult to see race--that's NOT the issue. The cops are not going to press you on race when it's dark and one is black and one is Hispanic.

    2. The first time he said he saw someone on the ground wearing RED. First impressions are usually right. Cops aren't stupid, they are going to write is exactly as he said it. He could have said i didn't see any of the color of shirts. If he saw one guy, then it is going to be presumed he was wearing red.

    I am referring to the multiple 911 calls.

    PassTheRock

Michigan State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports