In which case we have no reason to believe any of the stories that would justify Zimmerman’s actions. All we know is that he shot and killed a teenager after stalking him in his car. And we have the teenager’s girlfriend describing exactly what she heard on her cellphone at the time of the incident. With no reliable information from Zimmerman, what conclusion could possibly be drawn, other than that he accosted Martin?
Yeah, something tells me that this case isn’t going to swing on the definition of the word immediately.
Nice try at deflection though.
^^^This. My boss just left for a trip, so I’m perusing the nets, but it’s a rare occasion that I have this luxury.
DianeG has some issues…
Thank you for your opinion. For some reason “very soon after” is not an option in the dictionary. Two seconds is a delay. Delayed is not immediate.
He says he saw the guy get up from the ground right after shooting the kid. What is the delay that you are talking about here that would have any effect on his statement? Did his broken nose heal in the 2 seconds it took to stand up? Christ you are being deliberately dense here. What about the head wounds from being bashed into concrete if they were on grass only? You are intentionally missing the entire forest to pay attention to like one pine needle on the ground.
I don’t know that initiating the confrontation has much to do with SYG. If Zimmerman’s account of being cold-cocked and having his head slammed against the ground is true, he wouldn’t have much opportunity to retreat, and SYG doesn’t really come into the picture.
That’s a worthwhile point.
On the other hand, Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch captain. And therefore it is not quite a slam-dunk to argue that his many calls to 911, or the fact that he followed a strange teenager in his subdivision, show any kind of criminal intent.
Regards,
Shodan
If I was being followed by someone with a gun, I’d feel it was justifiable to defend myself with deadly force as well.
As I say, you don’t understand common, conversational usage.
I punched Fred and he *immediately *fell down. By your standards he didn’t, since a second or two probably passed before he stopped moving.
I shot Fred and he *immediately *fell to the ground, dead. Except my bullet doesn’t hit Fred the same instant I shot it. And even if my bullet finds Fred’s heart, he’s still alive for some time after the bullet is hit.
An explosion went off and I immediately dove to the ground. Aside from the time it takes the explosion to be seen by me, and interpreted by my brain, and my nerve signals to reach my muscles and for gravity to help me to the ground isn’t instant.
So, you’re splitting hairs and deflecting. Either because you’re stupid, or because you’re smart enough to know you’re losing this argument.
Edit: I just looked at the dictionary definition you posted:
Is the person in the example going to call without a nano-second of delay?
If that account is true, then black teenagers use the word “homie.” They don’t.
While the bolded dialogue is pretty :rolleyes:-worthy, I don’t think it’s indicative of much of anything; all it shows is that Zimmerman (or one of the other two links in the chain) has a terrible memory for dialogue.
You make it sound like it’s a mystery as to why he was there. It’s not as though he made a weird detour through there; it was where he was supposed to be. 
Oh. Yeah, missed that. Okay, then.
Horsecrap. Big, steamy, stinky piles of it.
Normal humans understand that “immediately” and “in a couple of seconds” are interchangable in that context. So do dictionaries, from your cites:
[ul]
[li]1. Do you mean to assert that the example sentence is identical in meaning to “I’ll make that call instantaneously”- which, by your definition, would mean that before the last word was completed, the person’s hand would be on the phone dialing. Which it might. But if they had to cross the room to reach the phone, or look in their address book for the number, they would not be able to make that call immediately(instantaneously) because of the 2 seconds eaten up looking at the number or crossing the room. So do we call the person who claimed they would make the call immediately a liar? No. Because that would be asinine.[/li][li]2. straightaway: not instantaneous, yet still a synonym for immediately.[/li][li]3. For non-native English speakers: (who might be inclined to be ridiculously literal) 2 : without any delay 
We need to leave immediately. [=at once, right away] The new law will become effective immediately. The cause of the problem was not immediately clear. [=is was not known right away][/li][/ul]
Obviously, these examples would be silly if they were understood to be perfectly interchangable with “instantly”, i.e. without even 2 seconds of interval between the speaking and the act.
[ul]
[li]We need to leave instantly![/li][li]The new law will become effective instantly.[/li][li]The cause of the problem was not instantly clear.[/li][/ul]
All to say: your singling out his use of “immediately” instead of “a couple of seconds” as reflecting untrustworthy reporting because it is inaccurate is simply false, because he was not inaccurate - he did not claim to be directly quoting the statement. He was paraphrasing, and he did so with perfect accuracy:
Definition of PARAPHRASE
“immediately” and “a couple of seconds” denote the same fundamental thing.
You wanna do some more? It will make 'luc wanna stick needles in his eyes, but he’ll get over it…
Was Zimmerman wearing a hat? Thus far, we have no evidence, whatsoever, that he was wearing a hat. Would it change your perception of the relevent events if it can be proven that Zimmerman was wearing a hat? I demand an immediate answer to this burning question, and will repost as many times as necessary to get an answer!
And keep in mind, the definition of “wearing” a hat is that the hat is placed on top of the head. A cowboy hat on a string, draped about the neck and perched on the shoulders is not “wearing” the hat, despite your attempts to obfuscate this crucial issue! Attempts which you haven’t made yet, but are certainly just about to.
Once again, if it can be shown that Zimmerman was wearing a hat, how would this change your perception of events? I calmly await your gasps of astonishment and screams of outrage at my brilliant insight. But keep in mind: at the present time, no credible eyewitness and no initial report offers any evidence…any evidence at all that Zimmerman was wearing a hat!
On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he was wearing a cape and cowl.
That he was suspended from school 3 times; that his computer nickname for himself was “no-limit nigga”; that he had gotten into an altercation with a school bus driver; that he was caught with a substantial amount of ladies’ jewelry in his bag.
(And yes, none of this stuff has been substantiated at this point. But if it is, then it raises the probability that Zimmerman’s story is true.)
I agree completely. And of course the same thing goes for Martin. Even if it turns out that Martin was standing on the corner selling crack cocaine and looking for houses to burglarize, it does not follow that Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense is legitimate.
So which of those things you just listed qualifies him for execution? Which one is the capital offense? Also, how did Zimmerman know all of this before he started following him? Psychic waves? I got suspended from school for a day once back in high school. Does that mean I’m also a cracked out, murderous burgler in need of a bullet through the chest?
No, it really doesn’t.
And leotards.
When are you going to stop evading the question? Was Zimmerman wearing a hat? Well? Was he?