Maybe Bricker is thinking of when you posted this?
It gets confusing when you use triple negatives.
you with the face, this thread is barely readable as it is. You aren’t helping at all.
Wow.
If a lawyer can’t parse that sentence, he’s got much bigger problems in life than I thought. But thanks for posting this.
Then who do you suggest is the last word or at least a later word? She appears to be more knowledgeable about this case than anyone who is isn’t actually employed by the prosecution or the defense. She actually has an account so she can download the discovery evidence as soon as the state releases it.
If you actually know a better source, then I would be glad to hear about it.
what about a poster who can’t be bothered to give cites when asked or write in a coherent manner?
I have no doubt that she’s knowledgeable and has a sound basis for her opinions. But you quoted her like I was supposed to change my mind or something. My opinion is that the prosecution has a shot at winning the case, largely because of Zimmerman himself. I read Jeralyn’s post Zimmerman Tapes: Variations Versus Differences - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime and thought minimized Zimmerman’s inconsistencies. She also goes for the Trayvon spoke first so he hit first canard.
Is she sure about that? 'Cause a lot of people think he went looking for Trayvon. She likes her posters to stick to rtheories based on the evidence but there’s none that Trayvon started it and Zimmerman could be lying about his motivations to hang up on NEN.
Both “sides” are obviously biased but I referred to the judge. “IF” the judge shows obvious bias, that can be a reason for a very winnable appeal.
It is possible that she has a more realistic appreciation of how real juries will react to the testimony?
Wow. “A lot of people think”. That is your rebuttal?
So your objection is that she doesn’t let posters spin bullshit theories that can’t be proven in court and don’t actually have any evidence supporting them?
You still haven’t suggested who is actually a more authoritative commentator on this case.
Yes. A ‘lot of people think’ is my rebuttal.She thinks what Zimmerman said is true. A lot of other people don’t. That requires no legal knowledge. She doesn’t touch on this in that post but how do reconcile “I fell down as soon as Trayvon hit me” to Serino/Singleton with “I must have stumbled” in the re-enactment. She glosses over Zimmerman’s inconsistencies. Another from same post:
We hear Zimmerman 's labored breath and wind noise for about 15 secs. after he says OK.
My objection is that she spun a bullshit story: Trayvon spoke first therefore he was the aggressor. And I’ve already mentioned Susan Simpson but she doesn’t post as often as Jeralyn. Susan Simpson thinks Zimmerman’s gonna have some problems if he gets on the stand. Whether SS is a more authoritative commentator, I don’t know.
That’s simply not true. there is a distinct fall off of noise after he says OK.
Yes it is.
AFAICT, the “fall off of noise” does not occur before he says “ok”.
It seems to come @ about 2:45 into the call.
GZ tells the call taker, “OK,” @ about 2:28.
I’m gonna hafta go with 2:45 coming after 2:28.
What supports the idea that the recording is somehow deceptive on this count?
Anyone can get one of those. That’s what released to the public means.
If anyone has the gumption to request one and pay the small fees, they can have one of their own.
In the actual call, GZ seems to be amply able to provide directions to his truck.
To me, what occurred is something different than “[being] unable to explain to the dispatcher where he was located,” on at least two counts:
- he successfully described the location where his truck was located;
- he was not trying to describe where “where he was located,” but rather where he was going to meet the police.
- H. O.
also
Who here would look for a street sign somewhere other than an intersection?
According to GZ’s re-enactment, GZ didn’t make any changes to what he was doing in response to no longer following TM.
GZ continued in the same direction and continued to look for TM.
So GZ was not following TM any more. GZ was merely travelling in the same direction in which TM had gone and was looking for TM. But he wasn’t “following” TM.
I am sure that it’s possible that somehow the distinction between going in the same direction after someone while looking for that someone and “following” someone is significant.
My uneducated self is just not clear as to what that distinction actually is.
To me, the way I use the words, travelling in the same direction after someone while looking for that someone, is more or less indistinguishable from “following” that someone. But I don’t have a degree or even substantial formal training in the use of the English language.
Perhaps someone can explain what the significant differences between travelling in the same direction after someone while looking for that someone and “following” that someone.
:shrug:
The bigger question is why should we not take Zimmerman at his word when he told the dispatcher he was following Martin, and not only that, but somehow spin this to mean he was actually looking for a street sign despite him never saying that’s what he was doing while on the call.
PatriotX, GZ would have believe that he needed to go in the same direction as Trayvon in order to get an address from the street he knew the name of. I’m not buying it because:
-GZ patroled his neighborhood in his car with his lights off. That’s some serious dedication for a volunteer.
-TTL is the entrance he uses everyday. He claims know everyone that lives there but can’t remember TTL.
-He tells the operator to have the police call him back implying that he won’t be at the mailboxes or his truck.
Zimmerman directions to his truck are only clear if you know what the streets look like. He botches turn left with TTL curves left.
Sorry, I misread the number. After listening to it again I came back to say it was only 15 seconds and saw that was the number posted.
This is an old argument that isn’t going to make any sense in court. There is no doubt that he would still be looking around for Martin. It’s the whole point of the phone call to the police. It’s precisely what a neighborhood watch person would and should have been doing. It’s also not mutually exclusive from his other objective and that was to give the dispatcher an accurate location for the police to navigate to. Those are mutually inclusive tasks aimed at the singular goal of getting the police to investigate a suspicious person. In this case it was Martin.
Zimmerman was doing exactly what any other person would do in this situation and not just someone participating in a neighborhood watch program. He saw something suspicious, called the police, and continued to keep an eye out for the suspect in a reasonable fashion. The first thing an officer does when arriving is ask for a description and where the person is or was last seen. I’ve done the same thing on more than one occasion. I flagged the officers down as their cars approached. Success was directly correlated to my ability to keep the person in sight.
Zimmerman was doing exactly what he should have done in a legal and safe manner. He immediately called the police and did not confront Martin when he walked back toward the car. He then tried to keep him in sight and based on his testimony never left the sidewalk area. This is supported by the evidence of his key chain on the ground which again corresponds to his testimony. He did nothing wrong up to this point.
He was doing both. There is nothing the prosecution can spin this into.