Posted on 03/31/2012 4:44:41 PM PDT by Krankor
I don't know if was an echo but it definitely made more than one pop ... After the larger man got off there was a boy, obviously now dead, on the ground facing down...New Witness Confirms Martin was the VictimIt was dark. I can't say I watched him get up, but in a couple of seconds or so he was walking towards where I was watching and I could see him a little bit clearer. It was a Hispanic man. He didn't appear hurt or anything else. He just kind of seemed very worried with his hand up to his forehead.
"Anderson Cooper: What did you observe after the shot?"Eyewitness: As I said it was dark, but after the shot, obviously someone, one man got up and it was kind of like that period of him - I can't say I actually watched him get up - but maybe it was only in a couple seconds or so that he was walking towards where I was watching. And I could see him a little bit clearer, and see that he was a Hispanic man and he was, you know, he didn't appear hurt or anything else, he just kind of seemed very, worried or whatever, walked on the sidewalk at that point, with his hand up to his forehead and then another man came out with a flashlight.
"Anderson Cooper: Were you able to observe who was on top, who was on bottom, were you able to see faces, or any details of the people scuffling?
"Eyewitness: No, just that it was... that it was that it was dark. I mean, the only reason I could say that if I was to have to say who do you think it was, I would have to say only the larger man, because after the larger man got off, then there was a boy, obviously now dead, on the ground, facing down."
Nice try. Nice try.
You are a liar and you have no evidence. You just make stuff and. Fortunately the majority of Freepers have you figured out. You’re only harming your own reputation, if you ever had one. We would be better off if you went back to Wonderland.
I salute you for doing that.
I stopped a long time ago.
I am fortunate to know many members of the DC chapter of Free Republic who are very politically active and dedicated, and found that in my personal encounters with protesting liberals, it was generally fruitless and anger inducing to engage in discourse with 99% of them. (In my three categories below, most liberal protesters fall into category 2, with a smattering of category 1 liberals in there. The category 3 liberals disguise themselves as mostly category 1 and 2. They cannot afford to take their mask off.
I joke that discerning conservatives should be grateful to liberals, because they make their point within the first few words or the first sentence of whatever it is they are trying to say.
I do an exercise with friends that makes them laugh. When they discuss an article they have read, I ask them to read the first sentence to me. I then go on to list all the points the author is going to make and how they make them.
I did an estimate once and figured out how much time liberals have made available to me (extrapolating out to an average lifespan) by being so transparent and predictable that I don’t even have to take the time to listen to them make their whole argument to get their point. The time savings were significant, on the order of years...
I have no respect for liberalism or the viewpoints that go along with it.
I use the rule of threes to classify liberals.
In the first class of liberals are, for lack of a better term, bleeding heart liberals. They’re not bad people, they’re not evil people… they simply arrive at conclusions based on their emotions. These are the kind of people we can talk to, the kind of people you will sometimes hear say things like: “why can’t the government make some money available to people who are down on their luck?” I view them as being basically good people, but either misinformed or mal-informed. (I respect many of these people, even admire them, and can consort with them. If asked, I will tell them my viewpoints, but don’t badger them. It can take years, but some of these people turn around.
The second class of liberals are the moonbats. I don’t view these people as being either very intelligent or very thoughtful. They’re the people who imbibed the Kool-Aid, and can recite talking points with fevered faces and bulging eyes. I find these people are impossible to talk to because they’re impervious to logic and reason. They believe what they want to believe, and they believe in it passionately, deeply, and with no element of self introspection involved. These are people who fit the bill of the description “Useful Idiots”. They are the ones who will scream the loudest in protest when the Marxists and the true believers take over and push the moonbats into the reeducation camps with all the rest of us. “But I agree with you! I’m not like the rest of these people! Why are you doing this?” I don’t deal with these people. I don’t respect them, and I don’t like them. I don’t waste my breath speaking with them.
The third class of liberals are the true, hard-core believers. They not only know the writings of Saul Alinsky, but understand what his tactics mean and how they are used. They don’t believe in the garbage that the moonbats subscribe to. These people believe in raw, unadulterated possession of power. There is no compromise and no negotiation with these people that will be fruitful. These people are true enemies of the American way of life. Most of these people (if not all) hate this country and all it stands for, and wish to see it transformed into their vision under their control. I despise these people.
I keep seeing people say “Why are Freepers supporting a douchebag like George Zimmerman?”
I would answer that we are less supporting Zimmerman than we are reflexively resisting leftist mob rule.
As for his being prosecuted, I am not an automatic supporter of police. There are good cops, bad cops, and the majority, middle of the road cops. But most cops have a BS meter that becomes developed after a while. They have to develop one to survive.
They often arrive on a scene, and have to make judgments about a situation. You ever see two cops arrive on a scene, take people off to the side to question them, then go over and speak with each other? They can tell pretty early on and with a degree of reliability what has gone down. I have seen this time and time again.
In other words, most of them develop a nose for authenticity and truth. It isn’t infallible, but most have it. I think that is what happened here. The cops arrived on the scene, questioned Zimmerman, questioned the people who saw or heard things, spoke with the dispatcher, and didn’t charge him because everything pointed towards an obvious truth in their minds.
I can easily imagine the cops standing off to the side, blue cruiser lights reflecting off of the surrounding houses, Martin laying on the ground and Zimmerman being attended by EMTs, and saying to each other “Hey. This is all lining up the same way after talking to everyone. It sounds like this kid attacked him, there was a struggle and he ended up shooting him...”
Sometimes they carried factual evidence. Their interpretations were nutty, but the evidence is what it is.
My "anti-Libby" position was that he got caught in deliberately misleading investigators. I found that Libby knew that Plame worked at the CIA, but told investigators he didn't know that. That was a political calculus on is part, avoiding trouble pointing to the WH/VP Office.
Most liberals say that Libby outed a covert agent, but that isn't so. "Outing" her was no crime, and Libby would have skated if he had told investigators that yes, he knew she worked for the CIA, and yes, he told reporters. So what?
-- The category 3 liberals disguise themselves as mostly category 1 and 2. They cannot afford to take their mask off. --
Good categories. Sometimes they are open to persuasion. I spend a few hours advising a group of them to shift their argument in waterboarding from "torture" to "inhuman treatment." The legal distinction is significant, and the pro-waterboarding forces have easy "not torture" arguments. But, the liberals like the incendiary rhetoric, to the exclusion of having an accurate and good faith debate. No skin off my butt.
Your previous words belie your assertion. You're basing a conclusion upon witness statements.
“At least three witnesses have reported that Martin was on the bottom, under Zimmerman, face down when he was shot.”
************************************************************
Do you have a link or some sort of source for this or are you just making this up?
“...Is that a FACT? Three witness have stated that Trayvon was on the bottom, face down....”
*************************************************************
Do you have a link to any source for this information, or are you too making it up? Are you and ‘floriduh voter’ two of those three eyewitnesses?
The examiner can only work with speech samples which are the same as the text of the unknown recording. Under the best of circumstances the suspects will repeat, several times, the text of the recording of the unknown speaker and these words will be recorded in a similar manner to the recording of the unknown speaker. For example, if the recording of the unknown speaker was a bomb threat made to a recorded telephone line then each of the suspects would repeat the threat, word for word, to a recorded telephone line. This will provide the examiner with not only the same speech sounds for comparison but also with valuable information about the way each speech sound completes the transition to the next sound.By Owens' own standards, these recordings are not suitable for analysis.
There are those times when a voice sample must be obtained without the knowledge of the suspect. It is possible to make an identification from a surreptitious recording but the amount of speech necessary to do the comparison is usually much greater. If the suspect is being engaged in conversation for the purpose of obtaining a voice sample, the conversation must be manipulated in such a way so as to have the suspect repeat as many of the words and phrases found in the text of the unknown recording as possible.
The worst exemplar recordings with which an examiner must work are those of random speech. It is necessary to obtain a large sample of speech to improve the chances of obtaining a sufficient amount of comparable speech.
And I'm not sure why anybody would weigh it more heavily than the testimony of an eyewitness who both saw and heard that it was Zimmerman.
These experts are really damaging their own credibility making such declarative statements - assuming the press quoted them accurately, which is always in doubt. They could well have said "they can't say with certainty it is Zimmerman," which is a great deal different than saying "it definitely isn't him."
Also worth noting that the cop in question was a state alcohol enforcement agent, not a street cop, the incident occurred in a college bar when Zimmerman was 21, and that Zimmerman pled not guilty before the charges were dismissed.
Doesn’t mean he should have done whatever he did, but let’s not make it out to be more than it was, either.
I’ve watched this interview. That witness clearly states he could not see who was on top or who was yelling. Nothing he says contradicts the other witness “John” says that he could see those things.
“.....I believe they were both on the ground in close physical contact. Probably rolling around a bit, which would explain why some witnesses saw Zimmerman on the botton and some saw Martin on the bottom.....”
**********************************************************
“Which witnesses saw Martin on the bottom again? Please link to hard evidence.
They make no such claims. I have listened to interviews with all of them. The two women are room-mates, and Anderson Cooper’s first question to them was “What was the first thing you saw?” They answered “Well, we heard a gunshot and went to the window.” By their own words, they witnessed nothing leading up to the shooting.
The other, also interviewed by Cooper, was specifically asked who was on top and he stated he did not know - it was too dark for him to see.
You need to actually listen or read the statements - don’t go by media characterizations of what was said. I’ve heard Cutcher in other interviews complain that police only spent five minutes with her, which I suspect is part of what gets so many people to say the investigation was somehow slipshod or incomplete. But when the witness begins by saying she didn’t see anything how much time ought the police to spend talking to her?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.