“exonerates” You are talking about scum who selected, hunted, and shot an unarmed child to death? A child walking home at night. Zimmerman is a maniac who should be in jail.
He started “walking back” to his father’s house again. As in, he diverted his course to attempt to lose his pursuer, believed he lost him, and then started walking back home again. That’s where he was walking back to. Not back to Zimmerman. Back to home.
This is how everyone outside of the conservative spin zone interprets her testimony. But I understand the conservative talking points, which make Jeantel’s testimony the “slam dunk” evidence that Trayvon was safely at his father’s house when he decided to go back and start a fight. It’s a great theory, not supported by a plain reading of English, but I get it.
That said, Zimmerman’s own lawyers are now arguing that Jeantel wasn’t even the one on the phone with him, and that her whole testimony was a fabrication, so go figure.
In any case, this conservative talking point, which you seem to have forgotten, is a far cry from what you actually said, which is “[he] told her that he was going back to look for and confront Zimmerman.” Which is absolutely nowhere in the testimony.
Blink twice if you agree.
He started walking back to his fathers’s house from right by his father’s house? Really? And Jeantal was trying to talk him out of doing that? That’s nonsense. What we do know is that he, somehow, got from right by his fathers house to the other end of the street where he was killed. You don’t “walk back” to somewhere and end up further from it than you started.
Also, I have no interest in “conservative talking points”, I care about the facts of these cases as demonstrated by the evidence presented, and I give far more credence to evidence presented at trial than most other evidence. Not that there’s anything that was excluded that was relevant anyway.
No, I am not. I’m talking about someone who defended himself from a maniac who attacked him because he was asked what he was doing in a private neighbourhood where he didn’t live. If you go around atttacking people and get shot for it, you are responsible for your own death.
And ditch the “child” bullshit, Martin was seventeen not seven.
What’s your definition for “right by” his fathers house. Say, in terms of feet. And where’s the evidence to support that definition in Jeantel’s testimony? For someone so keen on focusing on just the facts, I’d love to hear just the facts and not your inference.
And ditch the “child” bullshit, Martin was seventeen not seven.
Zimmerman was 28. A grown-ass man. Scum who was patrolling his neighbourhood looking for a victim. He found Martin (a child) and shot him.
I’m really happy we’re revisiting this Zimmerman stuff in this thread, because we haven’t been through it a thousand times before.
Steophan, I read her testimony very differently than you do, for what it’s worth (practically nothing). In any case, it’s definitely not as clear cut as you seem to think it is. “Walking back” in context looks like he’s walking back to his father’s house, not running (because he’s tired), and Zimmerman shows up again, and Martin confronts him and says, “Why are you following me?” “Right by” could easily be a block or two away, and that’s how it reads to me.
That’s how I would interpret her testimony, just reading it in the conversation style that it is. You seem to be interpreting it in the most favorable way possible to Zimmerman.
OK, I’m going to report my own post to see if this Zimmerman discussion can be peeled away to its own thread.
Where do you get this remark from?
I believe he’s turning orcenio’s own description of Zimm (which he quotes). around.
Truly our commentaries have degraded. I’ll step back.
As JRDelirious notes, I’m pointing out that orcenio’s description applies more accurately to Martin than Zimmerman. I actually think it’s hyperbole, I think Martin was a pretty average angry young man who let his pride get in the way of his reason, and decided to start a fight with the wrong person.
It means that he was basically there, and it wasn’t somewhere he needed to walk back to. Definitely closer than the other end of the street, which is where he was shot. I can’t see any reason for Jeantal to be telling Martin not to walk back if he was talking about walking to the house.
He was walking back to Zimmerman, she wanted him to instead run to his father’s house - something he didn’t do even when he encountered Zimmerman again. Martin clearly wasn’t scared at that point, and clearly wasn’t right by the house. My speculation is that he was angry at being followed, angry at having been made to feel weak whilst talking to a girl, and wanted to take that out on ZImmerman. And that’s not something you can do, no matter how angry someone makes you.
And to bring this back on topic, Martin was the same age as Rittenhouse. If one is a child that is allowed to attack people without a meaningful threat, so is the other. You can’t condemn Rittenhouse even if you think he had no reason to shoot and not condemn Martin for attacking Zimmerman.
From the context, it reads to me that she was saying, “don’t walk back, run back!”
A lot of what you’re describing in Jeantel’s testimony is a fabrication.
Why would she fabricate it?
You misunderstood. The things you’re saying she said are lies. She did not say those things.
I’ve quoted from the transcript as linked above. If you think that’s wrong, feel free to find a video that shows it, but I’m trusting it for now.
It’s possible I’ve misunderstood something as I’m not as familiar with AAVE as some people, but if that’s the case maybe point that out rather than accuse me of lying?
I can’t point it out in the transcript because the stuff you’re saying is in there is not in there. Others have tried to explain it to you. I’m not sure what else I can do here. It’s not an AAVE thing.
I’ve been pointing out the areas that I think you’re reading wrong, but you don’t seem to see my posts.