Trayvon Martin was also suspended for graffiti, previously found with 12 pieces of women's jewlery

[Kurska]

The jewelry was found in his backpack along with a watch and a screwdriver.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html

Source if you want to read it yourself.

Well, this should be interesting. Neither this nor the previous pot thing would justify someone shooting him, but people are going to have a field day with this tomorrow.

His family is disputing this.

I didn't see anything else about this on the front page.

[Skittles]

1. they're just now saying this?

please

[FarLeftFist]

23. And remember, it's all a distraction. Unless it involves the events of that night nothing else matte

matters.

[Skittles]

30. oh I hear you

anything to take the spotlight off the paranoid gun nut

[yourout]

2. And thanks to the complete bungling of the investigation we will never know if.......

his prints are on the items or were they planted.

Hell maybe they were his.

[Kurska]

5. They weren't found where he was shot.

Last edited Tue Mar 27, 2012, 12:40 AM - Edit history (1)

This is a previous incident from awhile back.

[yourout]

8. Oops....my bad.

[Kurska]

102. He* my bad typo.

Should be good.

[Ken Burch]

111. Deleted post you were responding to.

Forgive me...I was just enjoying the unintentional humor in the original phrasing.

And trust me...I disagree with you on a few things...but I'd never pop a cap in your ass.

[Kurska]

116. As would I never do the same to you.

Consider this a fear free zone as far as caps and popping are concerned.

[EFerrari]

3. Tomorrow they'll have him bombing Pearl Harbor and taking the Lindbergh baby. n/t

[Kurska]

12. It is your position that this is fake? n/t

[EFerrari]

15. Sure, why not.

It's definitely bullshit

[Ken Burch]

54. Even if it isn't...it's irrelevant

Remember, if it were true, Zimmerman wouldn't have known of it when he made the decision to shoot...he knew nothing ABOUT Trayvon.

Until absolute proof of this is provided...we should assume that it's part of the defense team's smear campaign against Trayvon's character...like the fake photos or Trayvon with pants down and flipping the bird.

Trust none of it.

[Kurska]

90. It might be relevant to a defense attorney trying to paint Trayvon in a negative light.

If someone were to view Trayvon as a thief, it would make Zimmerman's story more believable. If only for that reason it is relevant.

[Ken Burch]

94. You're forgetting the fact that Zimmerman wouldn't have know of this

since Zimmerman didn't know who Trayvon was when he killed him.

Therefore, it couldn't logically mitigate what Zimmerman had done, even IF we were to accept the nearly fascist implication that it's ok to kill somebody on sight if you think they might have stolen something.

[Kurska]

100. Not what the defense lawyer would imply.

Zimmerman claims he briefly followed Trayvon, lost sight of him, returned to his car and was attacked there. If what he claims if true then yes he attacked in self defense, following someone does not give them the right to attack you. The key part is whether we believe what Zimmerman is saying. The question being why would Trayvon attack Zimmerman just for following him? Well it doesn't conclusively prove anything, but if Trayvon had a record of theft it is easier to picture him attacking someone for following him (illegal behaviors tend to correlate with illegal behaviors).

I'm not saying that is how that is. I'm not saying that is what will happen. I'm just saying what they could argue.

[Ken Burch]

104. That assumes though, that Trayvon would be reckless enough

to attack a person who could, for all he knew, be armed, in a situation in which Trayvon himself was NOT armed-also, it assumes that Trayvon would act like a paranoid criminal even in a situation where he had done nothing at all that could be construed by any sensible person as a criminal act.

It's a stretch to assume that this means anything.

You should regard the introduction of this anecdote in the "Court of Public Opinion" as simply a bit of pre-emptive character assassination on Trayvon...in case you hadn't noticed, they've been slandering the poor kid all day.

[Kurska]

118. I'd say the likelihood Trayvon acted like a paranoid criminal is increased if he is a criminal.

Which again, has not yet been demonstrated. Partially that seems to be what everyone is trying to figure out.

[EFerrari]

117. But he had no record of theft whatsoever while

Zimmerman had a record of assault.

So no, this bullshit article is not important, it is spin, spin away from Zimmerman's record and his murder of Trayvon Martin.

[Ken Burch]

119. Check your pm's n/t.

[Kurska]

121. Zimmerman's assault charge was dropped I believe?

So neither of them have a record.

But you can commit a crime without having a record. Hell, you seem to be of the position that Zimmerman committed murder, yet doesn't have murder on his record (yet at least).

I'm not sure what Zimmerman's lawyers could bring up at trial, they might be able to say Trayvon was under investigation for some sort of crime (assuming again that he was the confiscation seems to imply that). Then again they might not even be able to bring it up because nothing came of it.

[EFerrari]

136. Wrong. Zimmerman was charged with assault and on more than one occasion.

That is a record.

Martin was never charged with anything.

And you are fabricating wholesale now which is very ugly.

[The Magistrate]

14. None Of It was Identified As Stolen, Ma'am, and The Officer Who Took It seems Still to Have It....

So we do have at least one real thief involved here, though it is someone with a badge.

[EFerrari]

20. I don't know, your Honor. A black kid with a screwdriver?

That can only mean crime in progress.

[The Magistrate]

28. And Yet You Can Buy Them Over The Counter At Any Hardware Store, Ma'am

Cannot even do that with spray paint....

[EFerrari]

36. Sorry about the spray paint.

That was my Nick's fault.

lol

[The Magistrate]

39. I Can Buy It Anywhere, Ma'am, I Am An Old Man

But they do not sell it to kids, not around here, anyway, not nowadays.

[EFerrari]

62. Yes, they locked it up in a lot of places when Nick turned 15.

Who says single moms have no community support?

[Ken Burch]

88. "They'll pry my screwdriver out of my cold, dead hands"....

[Kurska]

21. They couldn't prove it was stolen. I don't know if it was stolen.

"Silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds", let's say it isn't stolen. Where did he get it from? He claimed he got them from a friend, alright, did the friend steal them? Was Trayvon a pawnbroker in his spare time, hell if I know.

What do you think?

[The Magistrate]

26. Straight Out Of The Article, Sir: Nothing Traced As Stolen

But still not returned to the person it was taken from.

No idea what was going on, and insufficient facts provided for sound speculation.

[Kurska]

31. Who do they return it to? Trayvon claimed he got it from a friend he refused to name.

Also, just because it wasn't traced as stolen doesn't mean it wasn't stolen. It just means they can't figure out who it was stolen from it was stolen.

[The Magistrate]

37. They Take It from You, Sir, They Give It Back To You

If you 'can't figure out who it was stolen from' then you have no grounds to treat as stolen at all.

[Kurska]

41. As far as I know, the police can't return an item to someone who does not claim ownership of it.

What I'm gathering from the article is that Trayvon said it they weren't his. If they aren't his why would the police return it to him?

[The Magistrate]

47. It was In His Possession, Sir, And They Have No Reason To Say It Was Unlawfully So

Of course, police have a magpie's attitude towards shiny things, and one does not really expect them to return such items, anymore than one expects them to return cash.

"Here's a tip, Bundy: don't die with your wedding ring on."

[Kurska]

48. Regardless of possession, it is my understanding he did not claim ownership of said item.

Lets say you're driving a friend's car and somehow it ends up impounded. Would they release it into your custody or would they insist the person who actually owns it come get it?

[The Magistrate]

68. This Is Not a Car, Sir, With Title And Blue Book Value

This is a few trinkets, which a person had oin their possession, apparently lawfully, as there is no reason whatever to believe the suspicion they were stolen is founded in fact.

[Kurska]

74. Not trinkets, jewelry apparently containing diamonds and silver.

The principle remains the same whether it is a big ticket or a small ticket item. As far as I know the cops can not return an item to you which does not belong to you. Trayvon did not claim ownership of the item, if he did maybe they would have been returned? Maybe not, I can't claim to know.

[The Magistrate]

80. Trinkets, Sir

And you return a thing to the person from whose possession you take it.

[Kurska]

83. Actually if you're a cop you return it to the person who owns it.

Criminals often have "possession" of stolen items. I'm not saying these items were stolen. However, a cop's job isn't to return an item they confiscate to who they confiscated it from, it is to return it to the person who owns it.

[Ken Burch]

99. Since Trayvon didn't CLAIM ownership, it means nothing that the jewels weren't returned to him

(again, assuming this even happened).

I hope I'm wrong here...but you really seem committed to the idea that, if this happened, it somehow mitigates in some way what Zimmerman did, and it obviously doesn't.

1)Zimmerman didn't know of the alleged jewels incident when he decided to kill Trayvon
2)There was nothing in the incident that would have justified the killing of Trayvon HAD Zimmerman known of it.

Trayvon did not have to be a living saint in other for Zimmerman to be guilty.

[Kurska]

106. I believe I explained my reasoning up thread why this is important.

I'll spare you repeating myself.

[dkf]

95. I have a feeling we are going to find out the origin of those objects.

[Kurska]

122. I hope so.

It would spare DU a lot of debate.

[dkf]

126. Yes. It will all come out especially after all this scrutiny.

No point in knee jerk reactions with so much still under wraps.

[Ken Burch]

60. If the police didn't charge Trayvon, that makes a pretty strong case

that Trayvon didn't steal them(and an even stronger case that this is irrelevant).

Why are you dwelling on something that is utterly irrelevant to Trayvon's killing?

[Kurska]

71. I don't think anyone is claiming they were returned.

On a discussion forum it takes two to dwell.

[Ken Burch]

86. I realize I misread that part. Will delete that portion of the post.

Still, Trayvon was not charged for being in possession of the jewels, and we have no way of knowing if any crime actually occurred regarding the jewels.

And, in any case, even if a crime had been committed, it doesn't mitigage what Zimmerman did-especially since we can assume Zimmerman wouldn't have known of this, since he didn't know who Trayvon was at the time of the killing.

[Art_from_Ark]

40. When I was 9 or 10 years old, I bought a lady's wedding ring at a flea market

It cost 8 or 9 dollars. I also bought various types of other women's jewelry such as a gold heart pendant with opals inside ($4.00) and a fine gold necklace ($3.00) at Wal-Mart, which I intended to give, someday, to the women in my life (I ended up selling the wedding ring for a couple bucks profit, giving the pendant to my mother, and giving the necklace to a high school girlfriend). I also bought a boy's signet ring from a neighbor for $1.50, and various uncut stones from a mail order house.

[Kurska]

49. Did they have diamonds in them? Were they silver wedding bands?

Those are the items in question.

[The Magistrate]

56. 'Silver Wedding Bands' Is Pretty Silly, Sir

Silver is running around a dollar fifty a gram, figuring quickly in my head from a price of thirty-two dollars the troy ounce. No more than a few grammes would be involved in a simple band, and silver really does not pay to put any great deal of crafting work into, when its price is at a sixty to one ration with gold.

'Diamond' is similarly silly, in conjunction with silver. There are chips of low-grade diamond, sold in bulk by the carat, but worth astonishingly little individually, as there will be one to two hundred of them to a carat weight. It is certainly legal to call them diamonds, and say that something with a few of these affixed is 'diamond jewelry', but that is simply a term of art for the sales-staff.

[Kurska]

75. You seem to be assuming things outside of the our possible knowledge.

Yes it is possible they weren't very valuable silver or diamond pieces, but it is also possible they were incredibly valuable. Neither of us can know, hopefully more information comes out later.

Honestly it hardly matters, some would say it doesn't even matter if he stole them or not. This is just speculation.

[The Magistrate]

79. It was My Trade For a Number Of Years, Sir

Nothing it that bag was 'incredibly valuable'. Silver is worth very little, and good stones are never, ever, set in silver.

[Kurska]

87. The article doesn't claim the stones were set in silver.

silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds.

Sorry for the confusion if I played a part in that.

[Ken Burch]

97. Again. it's irrelevant

Information Zimmerman could NOT have had at the time he killed Trayvon cannot mitigate Zimmerman's decision to kill him.
Any half-competent judge would sustain a prosecution objection to any questions regarding this alleged event in a trial.

[The Magistrate]

105. And In English, Sir, That Means All Items Were Silver

If the earrings were another metal, that would have been specified, and absent that, the conjunction applies to modifier to both nouns.

If gold were present, it would have been stated.

But you are clearly clutching at straws by now, and becoming very, very boring.

[Kurska]

130. I responded to this down thread, please look at it.

I quoted the exact sentence structure and it seems to imply earrings that are something besides silver.

[Ken Burch]

64. Assuming there were any real stones involved.

And even if there were, this doesn't have anything to do with Trayvon's death, and doesn't mitigate Zimmerman's decision to kill Trayvon. Zimmerman didn't know who Trayvon was and wouldn't have known of any of this even if it were true.

You're letting yourself be used in a defense campaign to smear Trayvon's memory. You need to stop this now, and self-delete your posts here, because you've been tricked into doing something ugly to the memory of a dead young man.

[Art_from_Ark]

69. It was a 10K gold wedding band

And diamond earrings can be pretty cheap, depending on the quality of the diamonds. I bought my first diamond ring at 14, and was really excited about it because it was my first diamond, but was later disappointed to learn from the local jeweler that that stone was just a step above an industrial diamond and as such had little resale value.

[The Magistrate]

73. The Cited Article Says 'Silver Wedding Bands', Sir

Of course 10k gold is hardly an improvement: it is pretty much jumped up brass, and will turn some people's skin green. In much of the world, you cannot ( or could not, anyway, forty years ago ) describe 10k gold as gold when selling it.

[Art_from_Ark]

92. I sold the ring for the gold content

10K is still 41.67% gold by weight, meaning that even a ring weighing 3 grams total would still contain 1.25 grams of pure gold, which would theoretically be worth approximately $67 in today's market. It would be a marked improvement over a Sterling silver ring of the same weight, which would contain less than $3 worth of silver in today's market.

[The Magistrate]

110. Understood, Sir

I did not realize you were speaking of your own possession, from your earlier comment, and thought you were referring to items said to have been found on the unfortunate young man some months ago.

[Art_from_Ark]

124. I understand

At any rate, a Sterling silver wedding band would still be dirt cheap, even with today's prices. Five or six dollars tops at a flea market or pawn shop, I would think. If Trayvon were like me at that age, then I can definitely envision him getting a lot of cheap but nonetheless precious metal jewelry for his girlfriend on anticipation of bigger things to come.

[Ken Burch]

57. In any case, it doesn't matter.

It's irrelevant to the question of why Trayvon was shot-especially since Zimmerman didn't know who Trayvon was and couldn't have known of this even if it were, in fact, the truth.

It doesn't mitigate the killing of Trayvon in any way whatsoever.

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. I think this poor kid was being profiled long before he crossed paths with Zimmerman.

[EFerrari]

45. Of course he was. He was a black teenager.

Teenaged guys get the stink eye just for living all the time. Much more if they belong to minorities.

[Incitatus]

19. Trayvon was the second gunman on the grassy knoll!

[murielm99]

42. So I guess Clinton is off the hook for those offenses.

[Ken Burch]

53. And he'll be the second shooter on the Grassy Knoll.

(Oh, and it was Trayvon that killed Bambi's mother...)

[eridani]

109. And don't forget about Albus Dumbledore and Jon Benet Ramsay n/t

[Ken Burch]

112. AND he and Billie Jo were throwing something off the Talahatchie Bridge...

n/t.

[marmar]

4. "Well, this should be interesting. Nothing he previously had done would justify being shot"

Umm, neither does this.

[Kurska]

6. Woah, I messed up that phrasing badly let me fix it.

[Ken Burch]

70. Again, why are you dwelling on a completely irrelevant detail?

Even if Trayvon had actually stolen these stones(and the fact that the police returned them to him argues rather strongly against that, since they never return stolen property to the person that stole it) this does NOT, in any sense, mitigate what Zimmerman did-especially since Zimmerman didn't KNOW who Trayvon was and, obviously, wouldn't have known of this story, and since even that wouldn't justify killing somebody.

You're letting yourself be used by the defense team...please don't.

[krawhitham]

7. They are going to have a field day with his twitter account

Which seems was reactivated

No new twits but you can read all the ones he posted

https://twitter.com/#!/NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

[2ndAmForComputers]

10. Yeah, and he posted a shirtless pic with a beanie and making a gang gesture.

[Ken Burch]

91. Or...rather, somebody posted a picture of somebody else doing that...

but it's ok...they all LOOK alike, y'know...so they MUST all be guilty of something.

[Ecumenist]

11. How many times are you going to post this "scoop"?

That boy may have done things out of pocket BUT HE WAS MURDERED, DEAR. Wonder what you would be saying if this was your child or relative... They can say things like this all day long every day of the week and t still does NOT justify his MURDER!!!!! This is the second time in abit over 20 minutes you've posted this. I wonder why?

[Kurska]

17. I posted it once in latest breaking news.

If I shouldn't cross post it here I'm sorry and I welcome the mods to delete it.

I'm not saying anything about the facts of this case because my dear, I wasn't there and I don't know them.

All I know is what is in the news. I'm not pronouncing anyone innocent, guilty, murdered or not murdered.

[Skittles]

128. there WAS a murder

seriously, I do believe an unarmed person was PURSUED and GUNNED DOWN

[spanone]

13. irrelevant.

[applegrove]

16. So it implies that if you get followed, you have to put up with it no matter if

you feel scared. And the person following you doesn't have to have a badge. As a woman, I really object to this. How can you tell that the person with 100 pounds on you isn't a bad actor? If I was a man I might lash out physically. As a woman I lash out verbally.

[bluestateguy]

18. I guess the PR offensive is now well underway to ghettoize Martin

And I fear his family does not have the infrastructure in place to fight back very effectively.

Candlelight vigils and hoodie demonstrations are very quaint but it doesn't do much when the other side has a smooth professional media machinery at their disposal.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

34. +1000 That's exactly why they are delaying an arrest.

I've raised three sons and at one time or another they or any one of their friends could have been
found with an empty baggie of weed, AND so could many of their parents. This is pure bullshit. I want to
see some documented reports of the jewelry confiscated at the time it supposedly happened. How very
convenient to find the jewelry and screwdriver while searching for a marker that is an item that can
be found in 90% of students backpacks.

[slackmaster]

22. None of that is relevant

He didn't deserve to die.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. According of course, to unamed pd sources

Sanford pd is a classic.

[EFerrari]

29. I bet you Junkdrawer is right

and the PD do have some kind of racket ongoing, burglary ring, shakedowns, something. Someone, anyway, is shelling out bucks for media right now.

[TeeYiYi]

25. Your headline is misleading...

It implies, in my opinion, that the jewelry was found in the backpack after his death.

The story is claiming that the jewelry was found the day after the graffiti incident but the family is saying it's not true and that he was never arrested.

”A lawyer for the dead teen’s family acknowledged Trayvon had been suspended for graffiti, but said the family knew nothing about the jewelry and the screwdriver.

“It’s completely irrelevant to what happened Feb. 26,” said attorney Benjamin Crump. “They never heard this, and don’t believe it’s true. If it were true, why wouldn’t they call the parents? Why wasn’t he arrested?”

Trayvon, who was a junior at Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School, had never been arrested, police and the family have said.”

TYY

[Kurska]

27. Not my intent, edited the title of the thread. Is that better? n/t

On edit: edited it once more to try and make it clearer.

[TeeYiYi]

35. Still unclear...

...and the jewelry/screwdriver is being disputed by the family and their lawyer.

Your headline implies fact.

Here's the actual headline from the story:

”Multiple suspensions paint complicated portrait of Trayvon Martin”

TYY

[Kurska]

44. What facts are in dispute here?

Trayvon was suspended and he was previously found with the jewelry.

I'd put in "Family disputes", but I believe I am out of space. I'm not using the headline because I'm trying to draw attention to the new information. That information is what I'd like to be discussed in this thread. I will add a bit to the main text that says his family is disputing this.

[TeeYiYi]

59. No worries. Thanks for trying.

To answer your question, they're not ”facts” if they're in dispute.

TYY

[Lilyeye]

32. Tomorrow? They had a field day with it today.

[eustus]

38. The article says:

Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds.

Trayvon was not disciplined because of the discovery, but was instead suspended for graffiti, according to the report. School police impounded the jewelry and sent photos of the items to detectives at Miami-Dade police for further investigation.

Sounds like costume jewelry to me. The police have known about this since October, but have done nothing. Apparently no one is looking for this stuff; if was worth anything, they would have opened a felony investigation.

[Kurska]

46. Are diamonds typically used in costume jewelry?

Or silver for that matter?

[eustus]

50. Fake diamonds. Fake silver.

If this was real jewelry with a significant value, the Miami-Dade detectives would be all over it. I don't think that the article says that the school system had the items appraised: the description of them comes from the officer who searched Trayvon's pack. I'm sure that he/she is not a jeweler.

[alcibiades_mystery]

52. This is obvious to anyone who isn't intent on seeing Mr. Martin as a criminal

Those pretending to see something else are veering very close to my "Ignore this Racist Asshole" button.

[Kurska]

55. I'm sure information about this will come out.

If you're right you're right and if I'm wrong I'm wrong. I'm just going to go with what the article says for now.

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. Mmmm hmmm

[Kurska]

61. Hey if I could magically appraise jewelry from 400 miles away.

I'd be doing other things besides posting on DU at midnight on a monday.

[alcibiades_mystery]

63. Oh, what you're magically trying to do is fairly clear

[Kurska]

66. Maybe it is a little hazy to me, what am I trying to do?

I guess I don't know my own intention as well as you seem to. Could you enlighten me :3?

[alcibiades_mystery]

51. I'll make a $100 donation to DU in your name

If there is so much as a fleck of silver pr even a cubic zirconium in that bag.

"The report described..."

Gimme a fucking break. Thin blue line here in spades. This so-called "jewelry" would have been spilled out onto a podium by Miami PD in a goddamn nanosecond if it hinted at even the slightest misdeed.

[The Magistrate]

76. Even Taken At Face Value, Sir, The Stuff Has Zilch Monetary Value

Was a jeweler myself for some years as a younger man, and what they are describing is worthless....

[Kurska]

81. Wait, what have they described beyond diamonds and silver?

Now you're defiantly going beyond the scope of the article. If it was described as cheap diamonds or cheap silver wedding bands you'd have a point, but the article is as generic as can be.

You seem to be making an assumption that they aren't valuable because they were found in the possession of someone who is young. Why is that a logical assumption to make?

[The Magistrate]

82. It Was My Trade For A Number Of Years as a Younger Man, Sir

There is quite enough in that article for anyone who knows the trade and traffic to make a reasonable assessment of the goods.

[Kurska]

85. And if you had the items in front of you, I'd defer to your expertise.

But in reality despite your profession you know as much about the items in question as they rest of us. Which happens to be nothing besides the fact they contain silver and diamonds of some kinds.

[alcibiades_mystery]

96. We certainly DON'T know that

All we know is that a report purportedly described them that way.

If we're being honest, that's all we know: a police report supposedly described them as silver wedding bands and diamond earrings.

We don't have the report, and we don't know who was describing them that way or under what conditions. My daughter often says something looks like a diamond. She's six. It just means clear and sparkly. Silver? Hell, a million things are "silver." It's a color, not an element! Maybe it's the same with the police officer. You don't know that one way or the other, and you have no basis for knowing that. You're pretending - because you REALLY REALLY want to see young Mr. Martin as a criminal - that the article gives you a basis for knowing they contain "silver and diamonds of some kind" which you represent here is a FACT. A fact! But you don't know it as a fact. You know only that a police report which you have not seen describes them that way, which is pretty far from a fucking fact.

So you want to be honest. So you want to wait for the information to come out. Fine then, let's play your game: you don't know that as a fact. You know only that some police officer supposedly used the words "silver" (for more than one ring described as a wedding band!) and "diamond" to describe a pair of earrings. That's all you know for a fact, and to say more is to be deeply, deeply dishonest about what you can know.

[Kurska]

115. I didn't claim to know anything more than the rings are silver and earrings diamond.

Those statements imply value, but as has been amply demonstrated in this thread do not prove value. Again, hopefully this question will be answered in time as more information comes out.

I don't want to see Trayvon as a criminal. The only thing I'd REALLY REALLY want to see in this entire ordeal would be Trayvon still being alive, that being impossible I'll settle for the truth of what actually happened both before, during and after this incident.

[alcibiades_mystery]

123. You don't know even that much, and to say otherwise is to lie

You don't know that the rings are silver. You know only that the word "silver" may have been used to describe them in a Miami-Dade Schools Police report. In fact, you don't even know that, since you haven't seen the police report. To say otherwise is a lie. You're not going to lie, are you?

You don't know that the earrings are diamond. You know only that the word "diamond" may have been used to describe them in a Miami-Dade Schools Police. In fact, you don't even know that much, since you haven't seen the police report. To say otherwise is a lie. You're not going to lie, are you?

You've consistently made the claim that it is a fact that there were silver and diamonds in the bag. You don't know that for a fact and you should stop lying about it.

[Kurska]

129. I'm clearly basing that claim off the police report, if it is wrong then I am wrong.

If you don't believe the police report fine, you won't believe me. People have cast doubts on the police report, some of them seem to have measures of legitimacy.

Even then, is it really possible to know ANYTHING for certain?

Wow we're starting to dip into Epistemology here. Maybe we should call it quits while our heads our still above water?

[alcibiades_mystery]

132. Oh, my, look who suddenly turned faithful...

It's not a question of "belief." You represented something as a fact. You can't know that it is a fact.

Nice try on the epistemology question, but this is your game. These are not angels on a head of pin issues, but your own logic of wait and see played against your consistently inconsistent posts in this thread.

You want to wait for facts that we can know. You've never seen this report. You don't know under what conditions the officer described these items. You don't know if he was being precise or approximating (indeed, it is very doubtful that the officer had these items tested - are you claiming the officer had these items tested? how could you possibly know that?). You even acknowledged downthread that the officer likely cannot tell whether the article is a genuine diamond (yet you seem to believe he can eyeball silver on the fly!). Now, to escape this charge, you pretend it is all so much theologianist epistemologizing, aw hem, does the Miami-Herald exist, har har har.

Yes, my dude, the Miami-Herald exists, and we know that as a fact with far more certainty than that you know there were diamonds and silver in Mr. Martin's bag. In fact, you don't fucking know that, so stop lying about it.

[Kurska]

137. Never have I experienced so much gnashing of teeth over directly quoting an article.

It seems like your beef here is with the news paper and the officer in question. I will say you're applying a very high standard toward knowing in this case, maybe that is wise. Regardless, hopefully the truth comes out in time. That is all we want here right, the truth?

[alcibiades_mystery]

138. Oh please

The substance here is clear: you insisted on stating over and over that the jewelry was silver and diamond. You couldn't possibly know that. You pretend to be waiting on the facts on everything else, but on the idea that this black kid had weirdly valuable jewelry in his backpack - of this, son, you were CERTAIN as all git out. Play your fucking game. I don't like it and I don't like you. I'm not going to let your bullshit pass unchallenged; that's for goddamn sure.

[Kurska]

140. I directly quoted the newspaper. Other people challenged the paper and the paper's source.

The only authority on this matter I have is through the paper, if they are wrong I am wrong. I was certain because it seemed to be coming from a trustworthy source. There have been some reasoned arguments here as to why that source isn't so trustworthy. I admit the possible validity of some of them.

You seem to be ascribing racist or malicious motives to me, if that is not the case I am sorry claiming you may be. But if you are I want to say I strongly reject them, I am neither racist nor malicious in this case.

[alcibiades_mystery]

142. I find you

non-credible, not the newspaper.

The newspaper is, in fact, very clear and much more credible than you. It says

Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds.

The newspaper doesn't say that there were silver and diamonds in the bag. The newspaper says that the report describes items that way. In other words, the journalist understands that she cannot know for a fact whether anything in that bag was silver or diamond. All she can know is that a report describes item that way. You, on the other hand, have spent the better part of the last two hours doing something that this newspaper article NEVER DID: claiming that it was a known fact that silver wedding bands and diamond earrings were like, y'know, so definitely found in Mr. Martin's bag.

You don't know that, anymore than this journalist did. You were just too dishonest, or too invested in there being obviously stolen jewlry in Mr. Martin's bag (and likely both) to admit it.

And, who me? Ascribing, now? Whatever could you mean?

[Kurska]

143. The newspaper included the report, saying something about their belief in the validity of it.

To include a source in one's story that one does not believe in the validity of, without comment of that fact, is not journalistically honest. So yes, if you don't believe the report you should take issue with the newspaper.

I'm going to say I haven't committed any great crime against decency or honesty by reporting what I read in a newspaper. If you feel otherwise, please be free to feel that way.

[alcibiades_mystery]

144. The newspaper rightly attributed the claim

which always calls it into question as a fact. That's journalism 101, playa. Not only did you state it as a fact, you mentioned numerous time that it was a fact. It's not a fact as far as we know. It's something that was said in a report. The journalist is honest enough about that to signal it to her readers. You were not.

Saying "According to the report, there were diamond earrings in the bag," is the same as saying "We don't know if there were actually diamond earrings in the bag - we just know that the report said there were."

You're really pretending not to understand this distinction? That really should tell the readers of this thread all they need to know.

[Kurska]

146. Alright let me explain, newspapers will generally only print sources they find trustworthy.

Good Journalism demands if they intend to use a source they don't find trustworthy, at minimum they should indicate this to their readers. There is no such statement here, so either the newspaper is using a source they don't believe in without saying so or they find their source trustworthy enough to quote is without further comment. Based on what you've expressed either way you should have a problem with that.

You don't believe in this source, I'm not sure exactly sure why but you have incredible skepticism toward it. In your attempt to support this skepticism you seem to be trying to co-opt the newspaper, claiming they also view it very skeptically, but the only evidence you have for that is a common practice used for nearly all sources.

This is why I'm not understanding the hostility toward my person.

All I'm doing is repeating what I am told, take issue with the source.

I think you have a newspaper in Miami you should call up and yell at :3. At minimum it might be cathartic. Although to be fair, it is very late and they are probably closed.

[alcibiades_mystery]

147. Attributing a claim of fact to a source

Is the same as saying you don't know it for a fact. That's basic journalism.

This is even clear in substance: there's no way the journalist could know that the items in the bag were silver and diamond. Any kid on the high school paper could tell you that. The journalist obtains the report. The report describes the items as silver and diamond. The journalist notes that they were described that way. In the report. That's all she knows, so that's all she said.

Basic. Journalism.

You, on the other hand, under the guise of merely discussing the article, keep saying something that the article does not ever say: that it is a fact that these items were silver rings and diamond earrings. You're lying. You can't know that. It is not a fact as far as we know.

And this is also clear from substance, since as I've pointed out time and again, you don't know who described these items (presumably it was the investigator, but the article doesn't say for sure) that way or under what conditions or with what level of precision. Indeed, all the article does is cite the report; it does not even indicate that the investigator was interviewed independently of the report. Here's what it would look like if they knew for a fact what was in that bag:

The Herald has examined the jewelry in question and had it analyzed by and independent jeweler and by the Gemstone and Metals Lab the University of Miami Department of Chemistry. Both these sources confirmed that the wedding bands were made of silver, and the earrings were set with diamonds.

That's what an independently verified fact looks like in a fucking newspaper. Get real.

[Kurska]

148. The report claims what it is saying is fact.

And outside of common journalistic procedure, I see no reason to believe the newspaper has great doubts about the report. Actually all we really have is the report, anything else is complete speculation. You seem very eager to speculate and speculate about what the jewelry really was, yet are very damning towards those who would give the police report (done by someone who actually had access to the objects in question) the slightest bit of credit.

Anyways, I have to be going to be I am very tired. Have a good night :3.

[alcibiades_mystery]

149. Nonsense

The school investigator's report "describes it" as silver rings and diamond earrings. I have no reason to believe that the investigator could make those judgments with any level of accuracy, nor do I have any reason to believe that the report is anything other than the investigator's on the scene eyeball reading of the jewelry. You're not claiming the investigator had these items tested, are you? Or was the investigator an expert? Were they stamped "silver," and "diamond?" Did the investigator pull out the jewelry magnifier he keeps in his high school file cabinet next to a bottle of Elijah Craig 12 Year and check the diamond's clarity? Is that what happened? So, even the investigator's capacity to correctly identify these items is doubtful, which is, again, why the journalist was correct to merely say that the report describe them that way, and why you were incorrect at best, and openly deceptive at worst, to claim that you knew what was in that bag for a fact.

[The Magistrate]

98. Not Necessary, Sir: Mention Of Silver And Diamond In Conjunction Is Sufficient

Silver has a certain value, and there is limit to what can be added to that by workmanship, which limit is severely coinstrained when the ratio of silver's price to gold's is high. In my day, that ratio ran about one to ten or twelve, and when it rose to about one to forty in the previous precious metals peak, the silver trade was pretty much wiped out. At the lower ratio, you can put a great deal of work into silver and price it high enough to be worth the time and effort; at the higher ratio, you cannot; people will buy a mere bead of the more valuable metal rather than anything, however well worked, of the less valuable metal. Only very simple, very cheap silver items can compete in the trade when the prices are as they are today.

Diamonds of any value are never, ever set in silver. Among other things, it is too sift to do a proper set in; the beadings employed by a setter cannot be durable enough. Stones of any value are set, if a white setting material is desired, in white gold or in platinum. Only valueless grades and sizes of diamond ever appear in silver jewelry.

Do yourself a favor, and bear this in mind if you are ever tempted on a home shopping network or catalogue offer

[Kurska]

108. I found your post interesting. But there seems to have been a misunderstanding

The diamonds were not set in silver, they were in earrings. The silver stood alone.

I do however appreciate you taking time to explain that, it was defiantly worth reading.

[The Magistrate]

120. In Plain English, Sir 'Silver Wedding Rings And Earrings...' Applies 'Silver' To Both

And that is on the charitable assumption the description itself is accurate, which, as my friend Mr. Mystery points out nearby, is by no means necessarily the case. There is no particular reason to believe the officer was not deceived by plating and a variety of modern 'sparklies': when we took my grand-daughter out recently for new shoes, there was some very impressive, and dirt cheap, costume jewelry on display in the store alongside belts and and socks....

[Kurska]

125. The exact phrase was "Silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds"

That implies wedding bands that are silver and earrings that have diamonds, to me, but again it only implies it.

Your point about the officer not being any kind of jeweler is very valid though. I highly doubt the average cop can tell diamond from diamond like.

So it might be silver wedding bands and earrings with something like diamonds in them.

Or it might be an earring with the Koh-i-Noor in it, purely working off what we objectively know it could be either :3. We'll have to wait and see.

[alcibiades_mystery]

127. You don't know that they're even silver

As I stated above. If you want to play the "wait and see" game, then play it full bore or not at all. To do otherwise is to be a liar. You KNOW that you cannot know those rings were silver. You've parsed and hedged and parsed enough to know that you couldn't possibly know that. So why keep saying it, unless you have some other agenda?

[Kurska]

131. Alright, something was found somewhere by someone

Maybe. I hope that clears it up.

[alcibiades_mystery]

133. That is, indeed, all you know

Police found something that looked like jewelry. An officer described them as silver and diamond, but we don't know that they were. That's all you know for a fact.

I'm glad you decided to stop lying about it.

[Kurska]

134. I deeply apologize for any deception, be it accidentally malicious or maliciously accidental.

Regardless, I hope you have a great night :3.

[alcibiades_mystery]

135. Whatever

[JVS]

78. Silver and gold of low purity grades.

Lots of 8k or 12k silver or gold. Cheap stuff, but if you get enough of it you have some scrap value built up.

The "gems" are probably worthless though.

[REP]

107. Yes; diamond chips are often used in plate ware and in silver of low value.

[arthritisR_US]

43. This article gives me the same feeling I

get from telemarketers....

[Cali_Democrat]

65. I really can't take this smearing of the murder victim anymore

A child is gunned down in cold blood because of the color of his skin and now people are doing their best to smear the child.

The human race disgusts me. I'm really very close to losing it.

[Starry Messenger]

67. +1000

[arthritisR_US]

72. You are not alone, I feel the same way!

It's despicable, disgusting and shameful. The rage and anger it engenders in me...

[ecstatic]

77. +1000 nt

[Marrah_G]

93. I feel exactly the same way

logging in and seeing this crap here is infuriating

[uponit7771]

103. +10,000

[alcibiades_mystery]

113. It's absolutely disgusting

The racists are out in force tonight even on this board.

It's fucking puke inducing.

[Tarheel_Dem]

141. This may be the first time we ever agreed on ANYTHING.

p.s.: I find it very interesting that three people rec'd this, and why? Two newbies and a longtime DU'er. What's that about?

[JonLP24]

162. I'm not at all surprised

by that longtime DUer recommending this.

[Tarheel_Dem]

163. "I'm not at all surprised by that longtime DUer recommending this". Neither was I.

[Mosaic]

84. Third world rag

Miami Herald, what a joke.

[Ken Burch]

114. You're kind of insulting the Third World there, bro.

I'm sore most of their rags wouldn't touch a story like that.

[lonestarnot]

89. I can make up shit too! And so what if he did? Should we all just be shot for bad deeds we have

done? Have you ever done anything wrong in your entire fucking life?

[Matariki]

139. I wouldn't trust the cops to not plant 'evidence' like that

given the way they've behaved so far. How would it be proved they didn't?

[sarisataka]

150. So are you claiming...

That Weeks ago the police planted false evidence to discredit him when he would be shot by a self appointed watchman?

They are good.

[backscatter712]

152. Or that they planted evidence just to bust a black teenager.

No, of course they didn't know this particular black teenager would be killed and become a civil rights martyr.

But he was still black, and yes, the cops do shit like planting "stolen goods" and "weed bags".

[sarisataka]

154. It happens...

But teens of any color tend to do dumb things plenty often without police 'enhancement'

I do not believe Martin was an angel, nor was he notably bad.

To me however, I could care less if he stole the principle's Lexus,put graffiti on the White House and smoked an oak tree. It is all irrelevant to his encounter with Zimmerman

[Matariki]

158. Where do you get that I'm "claiming" anything in my post?

the article reads:

A lawyer for the dead teen’s family acknowledged Trayvon had been suspended for graffiti, but said the family knew nothing about the jewelry and the screwdriver.

“It’s completely irrelevant to what happened Feb. 26,” said attorney Benjamin Crump. “They never heard this, and don’t believe it’s true. If it were true, why wouldn’t they call the parents? Why wasn’t he arrested?”

I'm pointing out that it's possible the police are fabricating stuff after the fact. Either way, none of it has anything whatsoever to do with him being murdered - certainly it's not a justification but rather an obvious character assassination to fuel the idea that he "deserved it".

[sarisataka]

159. I took your statement...

about planting evidence to mean you were suggesting they artificially created an incident to cloud an event that had not yet happened.

Sorry, I'm easily confused

I am not sure I believe the story is made up but certainly believe there is the possibility.

See #154, last paragraph for how relevant I think the 'priors' are...

[6000eliot]

145. This is like attempting to smear a rape victim by saying she was sexually promiscuous.

It has NOTHING to do with what happened.

[Mariana]

156. Perfect analogy. That's exactly what it's like. nt.

[Zax2me]

160. Yet another analogy might be the Duke Lacrosse team...

Just wait for ALL the facts.

[Mariana]

161. No, it's not.

If a woman says she was raped, the clothes she was wearing at the time have nothing to do with whether or not she was actually raped.

This particular story about Trayvon Martin has no relation whatsoever to what happened the night of the shooting. If Zimmerman is 100% innocent, Trayvon was trying to kill him and he shot in self defense, this story is irrelevant. If Zimmerman hunted Trayvon down with the intention of murdering him from the time he saw him, this story is irrelevant. If the truth is somewhere in between, this story is irrelevant.

Edited to fix a sentence.

[Evasporque]

151. irrelevant to the shooting....

simply a character assassination by Zimmerman lawyers...

[morningfog]

153. Completely fucking irrelevant. No judge would let defense bring this in.

Shame on you for the lengths you've gone through to help smearing the victim.

[Aerows]

155. Who cares?

None of that is relevant, and none of it is grounds to murder him.

[Catherine Vincent]

157. It doesn't matter

It has nothing to do with Zimmerman killing him.