The media and the Democrats manufactured this whole thing, and they should pay for it if there are riots.
I’ve heard this term three times this week among several people involved in emergency management.
It appears urban police departments are talking about dealing with violence when the Zimmerman case is tossed out or he is acquitted.
I told my mother this the day the doctored video from NBC or whoever it was(cant remember now), I figured they'll be some big big riots in mass pop areas such as LA, Chicago etc, places with a history of rioting. I just hope its not used as a ploy to get more gun "control" laws passed. Got to love the USA
THIS ^^^ . That video should 've come much sooner than it did .
If I were an Emergency Manager, I'd at least be talking to my bosses about the possibility. I'm starting to believe, though, that the race-baiters may not be able to get a lot of traction on this case. There may be other bits of tinder that can be fanned into flames if the Democrats get desperate enough later in the year.
Why does this video mean anything at all? This is the same video that resulted in a special prosecutor STILL choosing to file charges against Zimmerman. This means nothing other than him telling a story the way he chose to.
OMG someone said something on video so it must be true!! Hey, some forensic audio analyst said the calls for help were from Trayvon, that already negates one thing GZ said in that video. Must be true!!!
Is it to far fetched to believe some in power want the riots and unrest so they can use it to further dis-arm the populace.
The forensic audio analyst couldn't determine if it was Zimmerman, that's not even in the same realm as saying it was from Martin.
Martin's father already said the calls for help were not from his son in his initial interview with police concerning the recording.
Funny that even GZ said it didn't sound like him. George Zimmerman explains: Statements reveal George Zimmerman's mind-set before Trayvon Martin shooting - Orlando Sentinel
And here is just one article of thousands quoting one of the two analysts whom I'm basing this opinion off of. Sure they didn't say it WAS Trayvon martin, but they're saying it wasn't George Zimmerman. Deductive reasoning would lead one to believe that if there are two parties involved, lets call them A and B, and it's not A then it must be B. That's logic.
Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman 911 call analysis: Two forensic experts say it's not George Zimmerman crying out for help - Orlando Sentinel
You apparently have absolutely no understanding of what "evidence" means.
I barely recognize myself on an audio recording, Zimmerman is not saying what you think he is here.
And frankly, I'm far more likely to put stock into the guy's own father claiming the voice was not him, than I am two forensic investigators who can't get enough for a match from a crappy audio sample to determine if it was Zimmerman, and have no audio samples to compare to Martin's voice. A mere 48% match means jack diddly squat if you don't have another voice sample to compare to, from the second party.
No apparently you have no idea what evidence means. If an expert is saying that a 90% match is needed in order to prove the voice on audio belongs to said person, then 48% wouldn't be adequate. Should I break that down for you mathematically so it's more easily understood?
Why do the Democrats get the blame?