NYChase718
Veteran
ZIMMERMAN got called a CAC
was trayvon on sohh or the coli
was trayvon on sohh or the coli
So, Trayvon referred to Zimmerman as a cracker
- Thread starter LogicFirst
- Start date
NYChase718
Veteran
Is the jury a bunch of sociopaths?
"Oh, he called him a cracker?"
"Guess he deserved what he got"
he called him a cracka and began to beat that cracka ass :fat:
He called Zimmerman a nikka and a cracka, it evens out
doesn't matter....middle aged white people don't understand the flexibility to which nikka is used and this is VIRTUALLY and all white jury. But this chick may have lost the case for Trayvon simply for being ignorant....that stuff at the end was totally unnecessary
. O'Brien gonna have a field day with this tomorrow, even past that the prosecution needs to have a expert on black English to talk with this girl...its obvious that she isn't up to par with her articulation. If i'm her parents I'm embarrassed as fukk.
Its gonna be a tough Thursday for the prosecution.
doesn't matter....middle aged white people don't understand the flexibility to which nikka is used and this is VIRTUALLY and all white jury. But this chick may have lost the case for Trayvon simply for being ignorant....that stuff at the end was totally unnecessary
O'Brien gonna have a field day with this tomorrow, even past that the prosecution needs to have a expert on black English to talk with this girl...its obvious that she isn't up to par with her articulation. If i'm her parents I'm embarrassed as fukk.
Its gonna be a tough Thursday for the prosecution.
Why wasn't she trained? Im feeling like Tray's family botched this case. If it wasn't for the fact he was so blatantly lynched I'd say Zimmerman gets off.
I still have faith those women will go with their maternal instinct and convict this child murderer.
Prosecution Witness: Martin Said He Thought 'Creepy Ass Cracker' Zimmerman Was Rapist
Sounds like this stupid whore just lost the case for the Martin's....
If anything it helps. Her testimony was brutally honest, and it showed to the jury she is willing to offer info that doesnt put trayvon in the best light. It helps her credibility, and in a murder case credible testimony is everything. What trayvon said about crackas n niqqas has no relevancy to his murder, so the jury cant acquit gz over that. If they are just racists looking to acquit anyway, then nothing in this case matters.
I think u guys are just psychologically held hostage over what white america thinks of black folks, and get mad self conscious whenever a black person who doesnt speak the kings english, and has a lil hood or attitude in them, receives some limelight, aka charles ramsey.
But everything in out history, media and casual relationships state that people who are not articulate are PERCEIVED as less educated and less trustworthy. Aggression is also something that juries don't respond to well. Honest or not, brutal honesty is NOT always the best way to tell a story. When your boy asks you "Did you smash the girl from the party last night?" You don't need to tell him "Oh yeah, i throated her then pissed in her hair" it makes the listener view both you and the girl differently.
That's what can happen, the jury can look at Trayvon and take the words like creepy ass cracka and INSINUATE that trayvon was taking an aggressive stance. It ALSO negates Zimmerman's "fukking punks" and "these a$$holes always get away" statements. People don't like racially charged statements in court.
There are a lot of leaps of logic and baseless statements here. For one you say there is a relationship between intelligence, or a lack thereof, and dishonesty, which is the first iv heard of that, and then you criticize her for not being dishonest and not omitting testimony that didnt reflect well on trayvon. Talk about wanting it both ways, lol.
As far as the case, ur projecting. I think ur putting more weight on an irrelvant piece of info, what trey said to his friend on the phone, and not the relevant evidence that determines guilt or innocence. If the jury shares in your opinion and acquits him over bs, then that is something they will have to live with for the rest of their lives
you didn't read that at all i said people PERCEIVE those who don't speak American Midwest as less intelligent/less trustworthy.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/journ...tent/uploads/2012/09/Phillips_SocSci_2010.pdf
(scroll to page 55, there's a nice graph for you)
That's just one example of southern english, there are also studies based on NY accents, The African American English Vernacular and more.
I also did not criticize her honesty, i criticized BRUTAL honesty which as i said isn't the best way to tell a story all the time.
Lastly, i also think it would asinine for them to acquit over something like that, BUT we are dealing with a majority white women jury some of them who are middle aged and most likely do not understand the usage of words like "nikka" and "cracka" in a non aggressive context...
Do you read posts, or do you just skim through them?
you didn't read that at all i said people PERCEIVE those who don't speak American Midwest as less intelligent/less trustworthy.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/journ...tent/uploads/2012/09/Phillips_SocSci_2010.pdf
(scroll to page 55, there's a nice graph for you)
That's just one example of southern english, there are also studies based on NY accents, The African American English Vernacular and more.
I also did not criticize her honesty, i criticized BRUTAL honesty which as i said isn't the best way to tell a story all the time.
Lastly, i also think it would asinine for them to acquit over something like that, BUT we are dealing with a majority white women jury some of them who are middle aged and most likely do not understand the usage of words like "nikka" and "cracka" in a non aggressive context...
Do you read posts, or do you just skim through them?
The study you linked did not measure the construct of truthfulness in southern vs standard accents. I think i get what ur saying in that people make base judgements based on a perceived lack of intelligence, but i dont think belivability is one of them, and if anything its been said that jurors can have a bias against witnesses who come across as too polished and educated, and less real.
I think the jurors will see here for what she is, a not exceptionally bright person who is very honest, and distraught over being the last person to talk to her friend, before and during his murder. We cant account for personal biases, and controlling those she was very credible in her testimony.
And she is not telling "a story", she is telling the truth. Omitting any pertinent info could impeach her whole testimony and really sink the case for the prosecution. You have no moral or legal basis to suggest she should have done so.
He is a creepy ass cracker though
Pending that all of the information can be corroborated. She's admitted to lying, and if they can prove that she omitted anything else in the testimony its curtains for her as a witness.