I don’t want us to get too lost, Mr. Zimmerman, so I’m restating my map-related questions to help you focus when you have an opportunity to examine the map so you can answer the following questions. Please, as much as you are able, indicate the time periods for each event or period between. Just your best approximation, of course.
[ul]
[li] What were you doing when you first saw Trayvon, the point at which you observed him and he sruck you as suspicious?[/li][li] If you were traveling in your truck, which direction were you facing, where were you, and where was Trayvon?[/li][li] At that time, when you first observed Trayvon, did you continue moving, did you stop, did you park, did you change direction?[/li][li] How long after you first observed Trayvon did you call the police, and where were you when you did so? If you have not already indicated and described it, please explain how your position changed relative to the start, and how Trayvon’s changed, if it did.[/li][li] Where was Trayvon when you told the dispatcher he was coming towards you?[/li][li] Where was Trayvon when you told the dispatcher he was running, and where did he run to that you lost sight of him?[/li][li] Where did you go at that point, when you lost sight of him? I assume you went somewhere, changed your position in some way because you lost track of where you were.[/li][/ul]
To refresh your memory, you said:
Do you mean you followed him on foot, that you exited the vehicle, or do you mean that you drove after him somehow? Please refer to the map in explaining your answer.
Do you mean us to understand, then, that you disregarded the dispatcher and persisted in following Trayvon, either on foot or your vehicle? Or should we take this simply as commentary?
Presumably this is because at some point in the sequence of events you changed position, moving in some way from where you started? Or should we take this to mean that you had not moved the vehicle since you first saw Trayvon, you had only followed him on foot? Or something else?
How would anyone actually know that? People aren’t like Jeffy in the Family Circus, there’s no little lines of dashes following you around.:rolleyes: I have been in complexes like those, and they can get very confusing, as everything is very similar.
How would anyone actually know that? People aren’t like Jeffy in the Family Circus, there’s no little lines of dashes following you around. I have been in complexes like those, and they can get very confusing, as everything is very similar.
We’re not going to use this thread to debate or extensively discuss the questions and answers, you can do that in the speculation thread. We are playing this out to see if Zimmerman’s story can be made to make sense or if the holes are too big to plug. So while I might want to respond to some people commenting or otherwise questioning things, I’m mostly not gonna and I don’t think Bricker plans to, either. I hope not, anyway. So it would be nice if you actually refrained from doing it in this thread to begin with, but just letting you know in any case.
Just like a real trial, ya gotta watch how it all plays out…
Since my original thought was that he was casing the neighborhood, his gesture towards his waist made me think of a weapon. That’s all. It was just my thought, that burglars might carry weapons.
“Mr. Zimmerman, if there was a button on the desk in front of you, and you could kill all the little thug black kids who’ve humiliated you through the years just by pushing the button, would you push that button?”
So according to your testimony, you found Trayvon suspicious and you feared he might be a burglar casing the neighborhood. You came to this fear or belief based on the following things:
[ul]
[li]He was walking slowly, which you found odd because of the rain and it also made you think he might be on drugs[/li][li]He was looking at houses in a manner that suggested to you that he was trying to see if people were home, the way a burglar would do.[/li][/ul]
I would be interested to know if you can describe for us the particulars of the way someone looks at house that, for you, distinguishes it as someone who is casing a house in hopes of targeting it for burglary from the way anyone else might look at houses from simple curiosity.
Since these are the only things that led you to find Trayvon suspicious, can we safely assume that if the person you saw walking slowly in the rain and looking at houses had been a middle-aged white woman, you would have suspected her of being a burglar as well? Or a 20-something Asian man? Or a mid-30’s white man in a suit and tie? And that you would have called the police to report the person?
Objection: speculative, badgering, and counsel has ceased to ask a question and has instead launched into an entirely inappropriate commentary on the witness’s imagined prejudices.
Not to mention, it’s a pretty dumb question to ask, since Bricker-qua-Zimmerman needs only answer “yes, I would have likewise suspected them” (not that defense counsel or a judge would sustain the question, and a judge might even supress it sua sponte even if no defense objection were forthcoming). Because it is a collateral issue, no extrinsic evidence could be introduced to attempt to impeach Zimmerman. That is, the jury would be left with your question and Zimmerman’s claim of equal opportunity suspiciousness.
Kimmy, can you please refrain from playing lawyer? Bricker and I agreed to do this thread with each other, and I’d really appreciate it if you would just leave it to Bricker to be his defense attorney. Please. Not least because the point is not really to play lawyer so much as it is to see if Bricker can make Zimmerman’s story work.
Sorry, no. This is a message board, not the Salon du Stoid. Get a blog if you want to conduct your intellectual experiments (particularly if it is for public consumption but not for public comment). Six “My Pretty Jesuses” was enough. Thanks.
With threads on specific topics, and rules about what constitutes mannerly participation, what constitutes threadshitting, what constitutes being a jerk, etc.
Per Bricker’s very fun suggestion based on my challenge, this thread is specifically:
This is not the “Everyone come in an pretend you’re the defense!” thread, so in what way are you contributing to the topic, the purpose, and the spirit of the thread by deliberately inserting yourself in a manner directly in opposition to the OP and to my polite request that you, along with everyone else, respect what Bricker and I are doing? Everyone else is managing to play along nicely, enjoying it for what it is, why can’t you?