No.
There are 36 possible outcomes when you roll two six-sided dice. Three of those outcomes are “ten.”
IIRC, Martin’s fingerprint’s weren’t on the pistol. If Zimmerman said that Martin actually had his hand on the pistol, that would be damaging.
gee another insult :rolleyes:
I didn’t speculate that he was wearing the small of the back holster. Let me repeat that in case you didn’t read that first sentence: I did not speculate that. I was asking questions of someone that did speculate that. See the difference? So please lose the condescending and insulting attitude. You are out of line.
I’ve asked this several times without an answer, so I assume you just skipped reading the previous times, but once again, are you 100% certain of where his gun was holstered on his body, and where it was when Martin was on top of him, and what level of difficulty he experienced in drawing it while being pressed into the ground? If so, how are you so certain? If not, then why are you expressing this attitude toward anyone that dare ask a question about it?
What exactly in Peterson’s statements to the cops about his whereabouts and actions on this day of his wife’s disappearance was contradicted or proven false by other evidence? Frey’s testimony didn’t have anything to do with his alibi, and the hair in his boat was not incompatible with his story either. Niether was the expert’s tide analysis.
None of these details proved he wasn’t fishing on the night in question. They only provided compelling evidence that Peterson killed his wife.
That’s why I say big whoopty do.
I have already answered you. For all I know, he could have strapped the IWB holster to his ankle. But it is not probable.
He claimed he was fishing – alone.
The expert’s tide analysis showed that his wife’ body came from a point along his fishing route.
I was the person doing the speculation. I still think it is valid speculation. Usually if you are going to wear an inside the pants holster, you need to buy your pants a little loose to make room for the pistol. When Zimmerman went to the Sanford police department after giving his firearm to the police officer his pants looked fairly tight. I remember that his belly was overhanging over his belt a little. I think he would have been uncomfortable if he had his pistol in there also earlier. Based on my experience with carrying SOB, it would be easy to reverse the holster and carry it outside his pants. Of course he might have just put on some weight recently and reversed the holster instead of buying bigger jeans.
So why are you acting like you are completely certain and insulting those who are simply asking questions about the incident?
Ah the “simply asking questions” thing. Hmm. Is it possible Trayvon Martin was a serial killer? True, there is no evidence of that, but it is possible, isn’t it? Are you 100% sure he wasn’t? I am simply asking questions.
yeah, that’s what I was doing alright. good lord. Anything to get the last zing in huh? Even if its completely out of loony town.
It is not. The police officer in his report stated that he took the gun from Zimmerman’s IWB holster. He specifically mentioned IWB. Now, the officer didn’t take the holster and examine it in order to see whether it was IWB or SOB. He reported that it was IWB because it was a holster on the side, the way IWB is worn.
Which could just be an extremely uncanny coincidence. That’s not the same thing as contradiction, right? A contradiction would be, for instance, a witness seeing Scott and his wife together on the pier, despite him insisting he was alone. Or a witness saying they saw him dock, exit the boat, and get in the car empty-handed, despite a claim of him saying he’d toted all his fishing equipment.
:smack:
By that theory, the witness could have just seen him with a woman that closely resembled Lori, in an uncanny coincidence. Or the second witness saw someone who looked like Peterson get in the car empty- handed, an uncanny coincidence.
If “uncanny coincidence” can explain away a contradiction, then please restate any possible Zimmerman coincidences and let’s see if an uncanny coincidence can explain them.
I’m sorry. I reviewed Officer Smith’s statement and you are correct.
The only variable is how far back Zimmerman was comfortable with reaching. Of course the cheap nylon holster without the reinforcement to keep it’s shape doesn’t help.
It kinda did. Imean imho anyway. I quoted it earlier.
" In this video I go over the IWB (inside the waist band) holster and show you how how to properly draw using from it from 2 conceal carry modes (front and back configurations)."
It seems it could have been the front side or the back side though.
But where Z had his gun when the cop found him may or may not have been where he had the gun when he & M had their deal.
But where Z actually had it isn’t as important as where he says he had it at the time–if he did say.
No, not the same. If Peterson insisted he was ALONE, and a witness contradicted that by saying he wasn’t (regardless of who the person was they saw), then one of these stories is untrue.
And if Peterson said he was carrying fishing poles, and a witness said he was carrying nothing, you can’t reconcile both stories. One has to be false.
In theory, it’s possible for Peterson to have gone fishing by himself, and have his dead wife wash up in an area consistent with his route. The killer could have kidnapped his wife, killed her and then later dumped her body in the same area Peterson had taken his boat, to frame him. Of course that story is rather hard to swallow (the same way “ok, you got it” is) but it’s not impossible. And so it doesn’t contradict Peterson’s story.
Easy. If Z insisted he didn’t grab Martin’s body or clothing to restrain him, and yet one of Martin’s sleeves had a rip in it and looked as if it had been yanked out of wack.
Would the presence of this rip contradict Zimmerman’s claim? No, because it’s possible that Martin had that rip already. Teenagers are known to wear ripped clothing all the time. Would it still be evidence against Zimmerman? Yes, of course. Uncanny coincidences still important. They just don’t carry the same weight in my eyes.
Yes. Front meaning to the side a bit forward. Back meaning to the side a bit to the back.
Why couldn’t the witness have seen a man who looked a lot like Peterson? That way, Peterson is alone, but the witness is telling the truth, as he sees it. A lot more likely than the real killer having the luck or planning to frame Peterson that way, rather than hiding her body ON the boat, say.