It’s only been a day. She said that this would be in two parts and that the second part of her argument was the much stronger one.
Hey folks… the only SD stuff I’m doing for now is strictly informational. I have zero self-control and whether it is debate or just bullshitting around, I can’t risk it. I’m not reading anything, I just popped in to ask about donuts, a game and now a material because I am going to be making a purchase.
Real life has to be dealt with, all the overwhelming crushing reality of it, and I’ve finally, reluctantly, kicking and screaming all the way, accepted that I am not going to live anywhere close to long enough to do, see, argue, talk, read, laugh, go, play, love, explore, learn, sample, cook, eat, watch or otherwise experience even 1% of everything I want to, forget the simple business of survival, so I must discipline myself to completely avoid the kinds of things I find myself unable to ration rationally, and the SDMB is right at the top of the list, ahead of Diablo III, which has the advantage of having a natural burnout built in…not so this place, as 14 years has demonstrated.
So I love ya, but no can do. I’ll succumb again some day, just as I did before. (I took a pretty serious hiatus 7-8-9 years back, can’t remember exactly the dates…)
Stoid
Okay, I pronounce Bricker the winner.
But in the grander scheme of things, aren’t we all the winners?
And here’s his victory cupcake! Frosting may be a little rotten…
I thought I’d point out the fact that Zimmerman was one of several watch captains, not the only one.
Well it seems like the hiatus is over . . . still giving up?
I would like to declare Stoid the winner, for the following reason: while she did not shake my fictitious version of Zimmerman our of his fictitious version of a defense strategy, it’s clear to me that if you compare her prosecution to the actual trial prosecution team’s, hers was the more effective. That’s GOT to be worth a win.
Yeah, from what I’ve seen and (mostly) heard, I’ll take that win. 
Just the failure to do the “tie it all together” witness…although I don’t know who that could have been.
But they do seem pretty bumblicious. I fear they are making the mistake that so many people do in so many situations, and which I’ve seen boatloads of here: thinking that because it’s screamingly obvious to oneself, that it is equally obvious to others. Not so. For either view. Clearly.
I disagree, since Stoid was trying to show that Zimmerman’s position doesn’t make sense. She wasn’t able to make such a demonstration.
Yeah, I don’t see how the fact that trained professionals couldn’t make Stoid’s position convincing somehow strengthens it.
The point is: the trained professionals did not do as well as Stoid did in making her position convincing.
That’s nice for Stoid, but the question to be settled here wasn’t “Would Stoid make a good prosecutor?” The question was “Could anyone make Zimmerman’s defense make sense?” or, putting the question to Stoid, “Are Zimmerman’s inconsistencies so great that even an untrained prosecutor could prove his defense is false?” The respective answers to those questions are, “Yes, both Bricker and the prosecution witnesses have shown that Zimmerman’s defense is a plausible an interpretation of the events,” and “No, neither an untrained nor even a trained prosecutor could poke significant holes in Zimmerman’s defense.” Those are the opposite answers to the ones Stoid was proposing.
Remember, Stoid chose her position. She wasn’t a lawyer assigned to make the best of a bad case. She wanted to show that the prosecution’s case was so good anyone could make it. So far, no one has been able to make the prosecution’s case convincingly. The fact that the actual prosecutorial team did an abysmal job may make Stoid feel better about her own performance, but it doesn’t make her position more correct.
+1
Alan, you’re overthinking. Bricker was making a joke. The prosecution’s case in the trial was so pathetic, Bricker was saying that even Stoid could make a better one. And believe me, that’s really not saying much.
None of the above, really. And I never even got off the ground, for a host of reasons. But that’s ok, shit just got real around my house so I think you guys may be relieved to see far less from me in the coming days.
Predictable.
Is your shit normally imaginary?
While I get that this is snark, I don’t get specifically what kind…if it matters.
Are you suggesting that shit didn’t get real in my house? (life issues, puppy issues, money and puppy issues, time issues… I am notorious for using these boards to distract myself from things which produce massive anxiety in me, and I have pretty much no impulse control, which is why I had to exit completely last year. Stuff was just not getting handled and that is becoming very true again…)
But for what it’s worth Bricker was declared the winner months ago and I was fine with that. Being back in the fray of this topic I see where it would never have been possible to do what I was trying to do, which was never to show “the prosecution’s case was so good anyone could make it.” I wasn’t wedded to making the case, which, as we’ve discussed to a fare-thee-well, is not the same as recognizing the truth itself outside the specific requirements of the law. I was about showing Zimmerman’s story to be chock full o’ shit, which it is.
But I have a much better understanding now, having debated it recently with the hardcore believers, the mental process that lets people buy it. Very depressing.
That may be the case, but you failed to make it.