Because the police have already stated that some of the times in the event log are wrong. You are arguing that the corrected timeline is wrong. I’m sure you will argue that Zimmerman’s cell phone records are wrong if they don’t fit your scenario.
So what you’re saying is that we have a lie that is contradicted by another lie, and both lies are clearly contradicted by facts.
Freaky.
The issue isn’t that he had one working flashlight and one inoperative one. The issue is that he initially attributed his failure to return to his truck in a timely manner due to the darkness resultant from his inoperative flashlight.
Which means he was being disingenuous. If he had a working flashlight, the darkness shouldn’t have kept from his truck.
Fine. “Followed.”
Sorry, but it’s right.
FSA § 776.08 provides:
FSA § 784.045 provides:
Owens v. State, 289 So. 2d 472 (1974), provides:
A person in Florida may use deadly force to stop a battery upon himself if he reasonably fears great bodily harm. The case I quote above finds “great bodily harm” where the injury was a broken nose but no permanent damage.
Interesting can you share this with me? I would like to see this.
If you can share the data that shows that the timeline was “corrected” and that the time stamps on the original document are in error, it would do a hell of a lot more for your case than your erroneous speculation about my motivations.
It would actually be an argument that was immeasurably stronger than your silly statements about me and my motivations–neither of which are germane to the case afaict.
That said, would you please share the data you have which indicate that the SCSO time stamps are incorrect?
Imho, data which indicate that the SCSO time stamps are incorrect should have been your first retort.
It would have been much stronger and much more persuasive than the recent posts you have made so far in re this matter.
ymmv
so, uh cite, please.
Again, you are doing a really piss-poor job of figuring me out. Not sure why you care about me, but w/e. You’re having some feelings or something I guess.
Just don’t wager anything based on your assessment of me and your speculation about me and my motivations will remain irrelevant and harmless.
It’s not just a matter of nit-picking semantics. If the only thing he did was get out of his car to move to the “T” to see if he could see where the guy went to, then I really don’t see how that’s injecting himself into a situation (unless he had good reason to think the guy was hiding right around the corner or would double back.)
What about “placing” himself in a situation rather than “injecting”?
What reason do we have to believe that’s all he did, other than his mere say-so?
If he didn’t know where Trayvon Martin was and whether he was armed, why would Zimmerman follow? There was a shooting in the gated community, before George Zimmerman became neighborhood watch.
I don’t know why I’m bothering to do this, since arguing about the 2-minute gap at this stage of the case is like arguing about the Germ Theory, but here you go.
Please note this is from a blog that appears to be sympathetic to Zimmerman. It also was clearly written before his statement was released, so the conclusion the author reaches is complete garbage. But even still, he challenges Singleton’s timeline based on the actual recorded timestamps.
Other than his mere say-so, I don’t think he would have done such a thing. And, again, I go back to his keys being at the T. It fits his account. So do the witnesses that said the fight moved. – He obviously was confused as to where he was when the shooting took place, but I think that’s understandable given circumstances. And, again, it would be a very silly thing for him to want to lie about.
I said a newspaper and not a blog. This was also published before the timeline was published in the Sentinel. April comes before May in case you aren’t clear.
He had every legal right to do that, but in my opinion, even if I grant that he intended to be only an observer, his choice was foolish.
So - I should be able to shoot someone walking towards me, because they might break my nose, which is aggravated battery, and that’s a forcible felony, and the use of lethal force is allowed to prevent a forcible felony?
Great - next time someone cuts me off in traffic and I honk their horn at them, if they get out of the car all red in the face…BOOM
As long as the jury agrees that your fear was reasonable, sure.
The color of Martin’s hoodie would be an example of something that would be silly to lie about.
Lying about how the fight started and ended would not be a silly thing to lie about. It would, in fact, be exactly what you’d expect someone who just committed murder to do. Just because Zimmerman got caught making a huge mistake doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to infer he just forgot or was confused. Not on a detail that could break his entire defense.
Bricker, you still haven’t answered my questions. I’ll repost them:
I’m asking this because you’ve repeatedly asserted that you don’t think the prosecution has presented evidence for 2nd degree murder. But you haven’t explained what kind of evidence they would need to show for that, that they haven’t already.
I don’t think he knowingly placed himself in a situation. I think in his mind, the ‘situation’ had traveled south down the “T” towards the southern exit. Of course, later in the call he states he’s unsure where the kid was at and so didn’t want to give his address. I’ll grant that he knew- or should have known- he would be taking a moderate risk by leaving his car and heading to the “T”.
But that is a far cry from what many people think he did (pursuing, chasing, stalking). If he had intended to do those things I think he would have headed south. (And for the reasons I mentioned, I don’t believe he did that.)
It’s more than just might do you great bodily harm. You need to have a r*easonable belief *that they intend to do you great bodily harm. Someone meerely walking towards you or an angry person exiting their vehicle would not suffice.
And to go back to the flashlight-key thing, it’s weird that in all of his statements–even the Hannity one–he never mentions what he did with those.
After Martin supposedly approached him and demanded to know if he had a problem, Zimmerman says he reached down to get to his cellphone. He feels arounds in his pockets and stuff and then Martin hits him.
But in one of his hand, he’s holding his flashlight, right? Did he keep it trained on Martin, did he drop it, did he palm it, did he try to pocket it? Why did he leave the flashlight out of his story completely?
We could wave this away as him just forgetting, and I wouldn’t have a problem accepting that explanation since it’s not particularly damning on its face. But the problem is that when Zimmerman came up with his excuse for the 2-minute gap, he never acknowledged the existence of that flashlight then either.
Is anyone else bothered by this?