Suuure. Cuz it is so easy to reasonably escape when someone is sitting on you and beating you.
I have no idea what a “no-limit nigga” is supposed to be, but the only one of those that even comes close to supporting the theory that Martin is a “hothead” is the alleged incident with the bus driver. Is there any evidence that actually happened? (Other than the supposed tweet from his cousin saying 'Yu ain’t tell me yu swung on a bus driver," which isn’t exactly conclusive proof.)
Terr, your stance on the term “immediately” is completely baffling. Not sure what you’re trying to accomplish, but whatever it is you’re failing at it.
Terr, can you give us a real world example of something that happens immediately using your definition? Given your responses so far on the matter and given the laws of physics, I can’t think of a single possible event that could fit your definition of immediately.
Please provide us with an example so that we can know what does fit your view of this word.
Of course.
I moved the mouse and in two seconds the cursor moved.
I moved the mouse and immediately the cursor moved.
Those are equivalent statements for you?
Ah, but the mouse did not move immediately according to you. There is an imperceptible delay of the electrons traveling down the mouse wire and across the motherboard that makes it not immediate according to your definition.
So please, an example of something that happens immediately in your view. Remember zero delay at all. That is the standard that you have set.
You don’t get context either, do you?
Terr, immediately here refers to the start of the action, not how long it took to complete. Now please quit it and move on.
The whole point of the delay in the original article was because Zimmerman had to extricate himself from the entanglement - he was on the bottom (because if he was sitting on top, either Martin was shot in the back or he’d be laying dead on his back) and it would take at least a couple of seconds. If he got up “immediately” that implies that he was on top. That is why language is important.
Ok, so you can’t even use your own definition to give us an example.
Thought so.
Also, my use of ‘immediately after he got up’ is not at all challenged by your last point. Him disentangling himself, tossing off martin, whatever it was he did in the act of getting up doesn’t matter. He stands up, the guy then sees him. You really are not even making point here. I don’t know what you are persisting with this for. Are you really just trying to distract the issue? It sure seems like it at this point.
Only to someone who determined to interpret the English language hyperliterally so that they can continue to defend a potential murderer.
We all can see that you’re this guy. Why don’t you?
Yes it is, and words sometimes have more than one meaning.
“When I got your email, I immediately typed and sent a response.”
“I heard the WTC had been attacked, and immediately went to my TV and turned on CNN.”
“If you hear the fire alarm, proceed immediately to the nearest exit.”
These are all perfectly acceptable and obviously don’t mean “instantaneous.”
As I pointed out, and you ignored, in the case of using “immediately” for Zimmerman getting up, that’s prejudicial, especially since the witness didn’t say it. You can’t “immediately” get up when you’re laying down and someone falls dead on you.
He’s defined the term away to the point of it being useless. If we adopted his definition of the word, I really can’t think of a single valid use for it in any context.
Still waiting for that example after all.
I said that he saw him ‘immediately after he got up’. What the hell is wrong with you? AFTER HE GOT UP. You keep missing that part somehow.
So, still no examples of your version of immediately then?
He should have left the gun holstered and just punched Martin dead. We all know that would have been an acceptable response. :rolleyes:
You cannot even quote yourself correctly.
This is what you said “new eyewitness says he saw zimmerman walking away immediately after the shooting”. Which, as I said, is prejudicial, especially since the witness didn’t say that. And especially since you put the link immediately after those words, implying that they came from the article, and not from you.
Are there witnesses to the physical confrontation? Or is that a hypothetical? I was lead to believe there were no witnesses, but then I am usually the last to know.
But from my standpoint, it seems like a pretty clear either\or situation.
Either he HAS a broken nose, scrapes, scratches, swelling or redness* consistent with the struggle he says he had* and his justification defense is hard, if not impossible to refute…
OR he has none of the above, no broken nose, scrapes, scratches, swelling or redness, which means his story is bullshit and he has no defense.
are we in court right now asshole? Why are you holding this casual conversation on the internet to the same standards as witness testimony in court? Oh, yeah, to deflect from the actual issue. Nevermind.
so can we assume no examples of something happening immediately according to your definition are forthcoming? If not, can we then assume that this pointless nitpicking is over?
In all this “immediately” kerfluffle, I have a question. Is the witness who used that term the same one interviewed by Anderson Cooper–the anonymous one? If so, it isn’t even clear that person ever spoke to the police. He/she may have just been trying to get his/her 15 min. If the police spoke with him/her, great, at this point I am more inclined to believe what that person said in the statement since it was closer in time to event, relative free from biasing recent events (I know there’s an argument about police “correction”/coercion and that can be addressed, too). But that same individual heard multiple shots. I don’t think that’s backed up by physical evidence or 2nd/3rd hand accounts of Zimmerman’s side. Also, the two female roommate witnesses also interviewed by Anderson Cooper indicate Zimmerman likely stood/straddled the body after the shooting. So, there’s a discrepancy. But, I would go back and look at these ladies’ statements and see what they initially said for a more credible version.
No matter how good/nice/honest of a person you are, witness accounts change, that’s why statements are important. The witness is often not even conscious of the change. It’s not a malice thing, it’s a scientifically demonstrable fact.