Yes, oh dear, the freaking out I have done! But really, words like “guilty” and “innocent” have no place here yet when we all know there are witness reports and EMS records we haven’t seen, but soon will…
And, public opinion does mean something. It’s not harmless, speculation. It is the stuff of defamation. Call Zimmerman an idiot–he is for following Trayvon, but legally that does not make him a murderer. Also, I’m inclined to believe Trayvon was a decent kid, but there’s so much spin out there right now, who knows yet. We can’t even agree what he looked like recently.
elucidator I didn’t realize you were on the anti gun side when you asked that question of me since I stay the hell out of GD. Did I answer your question well enough–did I confirm a suspicion? I try to be as fair as I can with my potential prejudices so I’m genuinely curious, not lying in wait to make an argument.
For many years I lived by myself in a very rural area–and then lived mostly by myself with a kiddo. Guns are somewhat a fact of life to kill vermin where I lived, and as a form of self-protection since any form of police would take somewhere from 30 minutes to an hour to get to me. Now, that’s not the case, but I carry nevertheless since I’m used to it and it makes me feel safer which makes me more confident walking non-cool Dallas downtown at night so no one really accosts me anymore when stuck down here late at night.
Well, I mean, we know it’s nonsense because of all the physical evidence contradicting it and the fact that it’s around the seventh version of the story to come out. Treyvon Martin did not, in fact, use the word “homie.” I’m just speculating on whether it’s even realistic to consider that a 17-year-old in the year 2012 might even possibly have used it.
All the character assasination of Treyvon is bizarre, simply because it presumes Zimmerman was omniscient, and also that they are okay with Zimmerman being his judge, jury and executioner.
I don’t have enough evidence for really anything other than saying Zimmerman should probably be civilly liable for the death of Martin on a negligence basis. I assume Martin is innocent as I do Zimmerman.
But, if this vehemence, and somehow personal? vendetta against me, makes you keep opining/llama drama-ing since you cannot wait for some simple witness reports and EMS records before enunciating your duly-weighted decision, keep it up. As I said, I may end up in your camp anyway. However, caring about the rationality of decisions of guilt, when there is clearly significant, relatively-unbiased information out there we know exists, but just haven’t seen, is not being a “concern troll.” I just care very much about the US system of law, and the presumption of innocence–for both of them. It may be over-the-top, I’ll agree to that, but no need for nastiness. At least in this instance
If it fulfills you so much to you to have the opportunity to jump to conclusions, please, continue to jump without waiting.
Well, whatever sport I’m playing, whenever I hear a bunch of teammates talking about the niggers getting what they deserve, I look down to double check the uniform and then figure that some horrible mistake has been made. I then back slowly out of the team meeting and toss my team gear in the trashcan.
The end result is, “we” had a loose cannon roaming the streets with a chip on his shoulder, deciding who was guilty before the fact (no crime had been committed), and some random guy paid the price.
I can’t comment on his mood based on that brief clip. But again, speaking from personal experience I was woozy all the way to the ER, and given painkillers there after treatment. So I was under the influence of strong pills when I got back home and had a friend holding my arm as we took the stairs to my apt. just in case…
Yes, I doubt that standing alone would exonerate him. On the other hand, if it turns out that Martin was in fact NOT out to get a snack as claimed, would it change your analysis of the case? If not, then let’s assume for the sake of the discussion that Martin was NOT out to get a snack but was instead wandering through a gated community for unknown reasons, ok?
Right on point. Has anyone addressed that rather interesting fact? Because other than the police allowing him to go home to shower and change prior to taking him in, it’s inexplicable to me – both due to the “injuries” he suffered and the point blank shot at someone laying on top of him. Or is this disappearing blood we’re talking about?
I’d agree that from what I’ve seen Zimmerman appears to be at fault. But, a broken nose doesn’t mean a gusher of blood every time. I’ve broken someone’s nose while wrestling and he didn’t bleed. Or if he did, it was so little that I couldn’t see it / or he swallowed it all.
Also, a close range gunshot doesn’t necessarily cover you in gore. We can’t see, from the video, if he’s got flecks of blood on him, but it’s perfectly possible to be shot in the chest and not bleed significantly from the entry wound.
Zimmerman certainly appears to have over-stated his injuries, but the video isn’t a slam dunk that his story is completely made up.
I have a bit of news that you might find alarming, you fucking moron. This is America, and there is no public sidewalk in it where Trayvon Martin didn’t “belong” or have a right to be.
Got a better idea. How about we assume that he was perfectly at liberty to walk about the streets of any American community without necessarily having a reason to do so? Yes, I like that one a lot better!
No, darlink, Terr has difficulty grasping the meaning of the words “initial report”:
In Terr’s personal world with his own private language, the term “initial report” means, variously:
[ul]
[li]The report filed by the initial officer to arrive on scene.[/li][li]The initial officer’s report.[/li][li]The report of the initial officer. [/li][li]The report of the first officer to arrive, even if that report had been filed a week after the incident. Or a month. Or a year. Or never… if that officer had died before filing his report, no initial report would ever have existed at all, and any and all other reports which were written by anyone else would have to be designated “later” or “supplemental” reports anyway, even though there would exist no report for such reports to be later than or supplemental to.[/ul][/li]
or maybe it just means:
[ul]
[li]"The report that allows me pretend that the fact that actual first report to be filed does not include the details helpful to George Zimmerman’s story doesn’t mean anything, because the report that was filed later does. So that will magically become the “initial report”.[/li][/ul]
With such a cavernous gap between his private language and the English spoken by the rest of us, where “initial report” means:
[ul]
[li]The report filed first.[/li][li]The original report.[/li][li]The report dated an hour earlier than the other report.[/li][li]The only report that was known to exist for a full hour before the other report was filed.[/li][li]The only report that might ever have existed if for some reason no other report was ever filed. [/li][/ul]
How can he possibly be expected to grasp the concept of “amendment”? I think he would find that bizarrely confusing: the grammar of his private language has it that the word “initial” refers to the officer initially on scene, vs. the report itself, therefore to “amend” the “initial” would be to amend Officer Smith personally, and I can’t even imagine how that would be done in any understandable context…
What’s interesting to contemplate is how Terr doesn’t stop to consider that very few people on the Straight Dope would ever go quite that far to deny reality and his doing so pretty much pulls the rug out from under any argument he’s going to make from here on out. But to each his own..
