Speakeasy forum: When Jews Attack? Black Teen Beaten in Baltimore.

Comparison's and differences between the Baltimore vs Sanford cases.

different picture too.

The incident occurred in November 2010, with charges brought against
Eliyahu Werdesheim in December and, later, against his brother, Avi.
There are some parallels - vigilantism, race, and self-defense - but
also major differences - most notably the fatal outcome in the Florida
case but also the handling by law enforcement.

Is it fair, to even compare?

>>>>The Werdesheims are charged with second-degree assault, false imprisonment and carrying a deadly weapon with the intent to injure.>>>>

JP had asked in an earlier thread about what Martin had been carrying and if a cellphone could be considered to be a weapon. I had said yes because it could look like a taser at first glance. However, in this Baltimore case, the hand-held radio is being considered as a deadly weapon because it was used to hit the kid with. I'm just pointing this out for the heck of it.

I also find it pretty crappy that once again, although Tricia Bishop's article that is linked in your post James states that bad publicity by the media is why the two defendents are requesting a judge decision instead of a jury, her own article uses the word "zealous" to describe Zimmerman in a completely unrelated case so it appears, in her mind at least, that Zimmerman is already guilty as well (zealous = eager, enthusiastic, avid).

It really bothers me to know that the media hasn't changed since the 1960's when they convicted Sam Shepard in Cleveland, Ohio (my "hometown")so easily only to find out 30 years later he was innocent with never an apology even though that newspaper is still up and running.

in that other thread, which item could be catagorized as a weapon and I said a cellphone because it can appear to be a taser at first glance since the size and shape would be pretty close. I never said it was or could be used to hit somebody with it. Stay on track here.

A truly sad one. I remember that one. Didn't he finally kill himself?

I suspect the Werdesheim phone was one of those heavier "bricks" like the cops use rather than a cellphone. I think cops now use cellphones, but they may have lent out the old "bricks" to neighborhood watch groups.

the use of the term "Caucasian" in reference to "Semitic". If not that article then one of the other various articles at the Baltimore Sun concerning the case. When Noah's ark settled his family consisted of 3 sons and their wives also. They were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Typically the Japhites were those who moved up into the Caucus mountain range and from there across into the European countries. The Hamitic people moved south and down into Africa. The Semitic peoples moved eastward. There's an ancient Jewish writing (Testament or Apocalypse of Noah? see psuedographica) concerning the division of the earth and interestingly in it is the pact that was made for each son's territory for his descendants. Interestingly, the descendants of Canaan were mentioned as having left their African area and moving up into what later became Judea, which was a trespass. Eventually of course they were killed off or run out as the Hebrews moved into the area taking over the "Promised Land" which supposedly had earlier been reserved for Semites.

Anyway, that's going into more than necessary to question the term of Caucasian combined with the term Semite as a description of these two individuals. Why is not the term Semitic considered appropriate enough?

Yeah, you said it could look like a taser and I asked you if it would look like a taser while you're holding it up to your ear and speaking into it, which is what Trayvon Martin was doing.

You never answered.

.....that he was holding the phone in his hands in a manner in which it could possibly be mistaken for a taser, but you managed to go there.

Zimmerman who mistook it for a phaser from Star Trek, and shot him for "attempted stunning 4 Centuries in the future."

Well, it makes as much sense as anything else here does.

Rob

over and over... The first paragraph says: A 17-year-old boy whose death has sparked national outrage fearfully told his girlfriend over the phone moments before he was shot to death that he was being followed,

The second paragraph says: Crump said Martin, a black teenager, had gotten caught in the rain and had put on his hoodie, unaware he was being followed by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, (NOTE: Key word here is UNAWARE)

Fourth and fifth paragraphs say: Earlier on Tuesday, ABC News reported that Martin's girlfriend said she they were on the phone together at the time. (NOTE: at WHAT time?) "He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," the girlfriend, who was not identified, told ABC. (NOTE: Did he put on the hoodie UNAWARE or did he put on the hoodie while talking to the girlfriend BECAUSE he was being watched?)

Sixth paragraph: It was MINUTES after the call that he was dead.......lots can happen in minutes as we all know.

Perhaps his phone was

SET ON STUN

Did he put on the hoodie during the beginning of the conversation with the girlfriend because it was raining and he was UNAWARE of Zimmerman.....OR did he put on the hoodie AFTER he realized he was being followed? The girlfriend gave two versions, and as pointed out by both James and me, was the hoodie even an ISSUE since the call with the girlfriend indicates he put the hoodie on for two very different reasons.

to the article, his girlfriend gave two different versions of when and why he put the hoodie up....first it was because it was raining and he was unaware of Zimmerman....then it was because he spotted Zimmerman and put the hoodie up. In any event, Zimmerman didn't call 911 until the hoodie was in place because he mentioned it in the 911 call.....but it does raise the question of why would Martin raise the hoodie after HE spotted Zimmerman when perhaps Zimmerman wasn't all that concerned about Martin UNTIL the hoodie was up?

I am questioning the girlfriend's account since she contradicted herself a couple of times in ONE interview, not over a series of them.

I'm not armchair-quarterbacking.....I'm questioning msnbc's interview where even THEY didn't catch the contradictions and ask about it. I also am waiting to see how this court case pans out because at this point, I don't believe anything I'm reading in the MSM press or news shows, and I'm really hoping for a jury that won't already have closed minds because of the negative coverage of this.

"I'm just sitting in my armchair criticizing everything I've heard about this case."

LOL

"He said this man was watching him, SO he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man,"

What is HE relaying...Where did HE find this info...It's a strange thing to say


SO? he put his hoodie on

Here's the conversation? (your version of events?)

Someone is watching me, I'm putting my hoodie on, I lost him.

Nothing else...that's it?

Someone watching you?...Put your hoodie up....

It's a hoodie...NOT a cloaking device.....It doesn't make him invisible...He knew that.

He put the hoodie up because he was using the cell phone (he took it out of his waistband/front pocket of hoodie, and put it to his ear) and didn't want it to get wet.

Remember Zimmerman....He's taking something out of his waistband?