So, you’re okay with assuming, for the sake of discussion that Zimmerman was looking to rape a black boy that night?
Protip: If you’re using Glen Beck’s rhetorical tactics, you aren’t being honest or smart. But then, I suppose lying and stupid suits you.
Do any of you guys have jobs?
If you don’t care, what the fuck are you doing here? There’s a whole enormous internet you could be exploring. Fly, little bird! Be free!
… says the guy posting at 9:32 AM.
anyway, new eyewitness says he saw zimmerman walking away immediately after the shooting with no apparent injuries at all. Also says the whole thing happened on the grass and craps all over the story of him getting jumped back at his truck. According to this witness it happened nowhere near his truck.
Well brazil has a fulfilling career in the custodial arts, Rand Rover is a snow mobile salesman and Terr is an enforcer for the Russian Mob. I think Clothahump is a retired town-idiot, but he still picks up a few hours every week screaming inarticulately at same-sex couples at the mall.
Personally, I am paid for professional services I provide ur mom.
Well a lot of bad stuff is coming out about Martin. It’s not clear how much of it is true. But if it’s all true, it raises the probability that he indeed threatened to kill and attacked Zimmerman (as Zimmerman is apparently claiming).
I agree. When I first heard about the case, my initial instinct was that Zimmerman was your typical wannabe-cop-loser gun nut who was out looking for trouble. Which may still turn out to be the case.
The new witness doesn’t contradict Zimmernan’s story. It is not “immediately after”, it is a couple of seconds after. Since the eyewitness couldn’t even tell which man sat on which, because it was too dark, seeing “no apparent injuries” doesn’t say much. And Zimmerman never said he was jumped back at the trick. He said he was walking back to his truck.
Heh, thanks for that insight.
aw, shucks, Sho, you’ll make me blush.
And I know you just can’t help that tricky knee of yours, but its getting in the way of all your other parts and perceptions: there’s nothing to be “wrong” about: all I did was point out the fact of the words in the report and wonder how they fit into the larger, ever-evolving narrative of Zimmerman’s post-killing experiences with law-enforcement and who wanted to do what.
Yeah, man, don’t you know that “immediately” means instantaneously?
Just like “initial report” actually means “the supplemental material added to the first report an hour after it was written by someone else entirely.”
Terr should really hand out dictionaries so the rest of us will have a chance to understand what he’s saying in his special Terr-Only language.
Aw c’mon… I don’t think he was being rude. It’s a fair enough question - it takes time to read and respond like this and when one is busy at work it’s almost impossible to even try with a thread moving this fast.
Sorry? What “bad stuff” is coming out about Martin? That he may or may not have died with Skittles in his hand? That he’s a time-traveler from the era of the Electric Boogaloo? The only “bad stuff” I’ve read about him is coming either directly or indirectly from Zimmerman, who I do not find to be trustworthy. If I knew nothing more than that he had shot someone, I would be suspicious of his story about why he did it, simply because he would say the same thing whether he was guilty of murder or not. Knowing that he was also a vigilante, waging a lonely war against black people doing stuff and following teens around in his car, makes me even more so.
Yes, let me hand you some dictionaries:
: without interval of time
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immediately?s=t
: without lapse of time; without delay; instantly; at once:
Yeah sorry I wasn’t using his definition of immediately, so I guess that’s my fault? Also, having it happen entirely on the grass negates his story about having his head smashed into the concrete right? How many parts of zimmerman’s story need to be shown as false before you think that maybe, just maybe he may not be telling the entire truth here?
I figured as he got up and walked away from the dead child was ‘immediately after’. So how about ‘seconds after’. Is that acceptable to you? Does it make any damn difference to the point being made? no.
Yup:
It’s enough to bring a tear of pride to one’s eye…
Since neither you nor I have seen Zimmerman’s testimony, every “lie” you claim is a conjecture. Every report about Zimmerman’s testimony is third hand, and is paraphrasing his testimony at best. Without reading the actual testimony (which will either be released after the investigation decides not to indict, or will be seen during the trial), you have no way of knowing what exactly he testified.
I can see why you’d think that, if you’d missed his previous two posts in this thread in which he ended a three-year board silence to tell us that we’re silly to care about this.
It makes the point to the accuracy (or lack of such) of your recount of the witness’s testimony.
I know you don’t speak English as a first language, but you should know this.
Nothing happens instantly. If I cut your head in half diagonally you don’t die instantly, as in the same literal instant. But most people would agree that you die pretty fast. If I turn on the light switch, the light doesn’t come on immediately. But most people would agree that it happens pretty fast.
In English, as it is spoken by most people, *immediately *means very soon after. It doesn’t mean in the same wedge of Planck time.
So your asinine hair-splitting is really off base.