Again, how does your previous comment address** Bricker’s **point?
“facts”…
Stop with that nonsense.
You need CONTEXT to help you give meaning to facts.
Facts can also lend to INTERPRETATION.
I don’t agree with your interpretation, as I have been saying from the get go.
What puzzles me is how someone can read Deedee’s statement, apparently afford it weight in terms of truthfulness and accuracy, but then still insist that Zimmerman headed straight back to his truck like he’s claimed. How do you think he spent those 2 minutes before the fight started?
On the call, Zimmerman expressed confidence that the kid was running towards the rear entrance of the community. It is not improbable that he traveled down RVC to catch Martin down there. If Martin ducked behind the houses as soon as he entered the dog path area, he would have had good reason to think he’d lost Zimmerman after watching the man shoot across the T and seemingly disappear down the opposite street (the sight would still scare me shitless, though…picture seeing the guy who’d been creeping behind you in his truck for God knows how long, now sprinting after you in the dark).
From there, it is not implausible at all that they’d encounter each other. Zimmerman would have to trek back to his car eventually, and if he came up the dog path rather than up RVC, it increases the likelihood he’d encounter Martin. What’s implausible is the idea that Zimmerman would be innocently dawdling around for 2 minutes after the call ended, in the rain and in the dark, when he knew cops were on their way to meet him at some as of yet unspecified place.
Could it be because this is how it is transcribed in the only transcript available on the net? http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/deedeestatetranscript.pdf
because this is what she said.
here’s an audio of part of her interview with a detective on the Orlando Sentinel.
Please explain your comment about it being derogatory.
You’ve ignored the evidence of the flashlight (planted by Zimmerman) and Martin’s statement that he’s “next to” his house (next to can be aaaaanything, except actually “next to”). You’ve accused Zimmerman and his friend of racism, the cops of incompetence and somewhere in there was a magic judo throw used by Zimmerman to land himself underneath Martin.
In order for your “interpretation” to work you have to ignore the evidence at hand and believe that Martin was hiding in plain sight and Zimmerman “found” him standing in the middle of the common yard area.
And on top of all that you’ve come to the conclusion that Zimmerman PLANNED it all. The only way a jury can come to your conclusion is to ignore the hard evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman. THAT is how it gets nullified by a judge.
I am not sure how being able to see something can be a prereq for being able to approach that something.
Z could have approached M by walking/jogging/running/skipping or w/e.
I don’t think we’re on the same page.
Well to start with Martin’s 2 minutes are not specifically sinc’d up to the end of Zimmerman’s call.
According to Dee Dee she called him about a zillion times so the actually timeline will have to be laid out and then compared to Zimmerman’s phone log.
how about “more” “getting” and “blowing”? You see nothing wrong with that?
Did you look at the disclaimer at the beginning of the disclaimer?
I see nothing wrong with accurately trying to transcribe what she says. I don’t have a clue what you’re referring to as the disclaimer at the beginning of the disclaimer means.
Sure – he called the police and angrily announced that these punks always get away.
Your interpretation of the evidence is certainly possible, but it’s not mandated. A reasonable jury could find otherwise.
Angry? there’s no anger in his voice. Sounds like frustration in light of the number of crimes solved in his neighborhood which I’m guessing is pretty low. And it was also muttered and not “announced”. This is so far removed from intent given his actions there is no correlation. he specifically avoids confronting Martin when approached by him.
Your original premise stated many pages ago that Zimmerman’s departure from the truck is a form of negligence is a pretty big stretch.
How about getting the point that those aren’t Redbrow’s words. It is a copy of a purported transcript from another source.
If you want to take issue with the wording, go sign up on Justice Quest and let the original poster know you feelings.
Otherwise where should Redbrow stop with the corrections? Fix “say” to be “says”? “Run” to be “runs”? Fix “yeah” to be “yes”?
As other’s have explained, I copied and pasted from a transcript of her exact statements.
Who are you to judge her grammar and presume that her choice of words and linguistic style needs correction?
Didn’t you vow to never respond to my posts again?
George never claimed “he headed straight back to his truck.” He was never ordered or even suggested to go back to his truck. He was never told to stay in his truck. He was under no obligation to run to his truck as fast as he could, jump in, lock the doors, crouch down, close his eyes and cover his ears as soon as the dispatcher informed him ‘we don’t need you to do that’.
He stated he was walking towards his car just before being assaulted. And the prosecution’s lead investigator admitted they had no evidence otherwise, to counter Zimmerman’s claim, while on the stand.
Singleton 2/26 interrogation-
Zimmerman: So, I was walking back through to where my car was and he jumped out from the bushes and he said, What the fuck’s your problem, homie? And I got my cell phone out to call 911 this time.
Zimmerman: So I start walking back towards my car.
Serino 2/29-
Zimmerman: Because he came, came up out of nowhere. I didn’t see him. I was walking back to my car thinking that I was going to meet a police officer there. So when he popped up he just caught me off guard. I didn’t think, I, tell him who I was…
Zimmerman: And I started walking back to my car…
And how is “dawdling around for 2 minutes” implausible? It is not that long of a timespan for trying to get ones bearings, in order to be prepared for the officers expected arrival at any moment.
How about having respect and tolerance towards an African American variety of American English?
African American Vernacular English (AAVE) phonology concerning words ending in ‘-ing’:
What and where is this “disclaimer at the beginning of the disclaimer” you are going on about?
Possibly.
I’ll give people benefit of the doubt that any ‘execution’ was done for the purpose of ensuring the invader was ‘taken care of’ rather than be an unknown threat.
As opposed to assuming they are a sadistic person.
This is what the Minnesota case represents to me - better safe than sorry.
His admission of shooting more times than necessary just shows he is remorseful and in retrospect, realizes that death may have not been a requirement to resolve the situation.
My real concern is that castle doctrine and SYG have absolutes that should be black and white, but aren’t treated as such.
Ultimately this undermines the purpose of the law.
Ok let’s not be coy or sardonic. It’s clear that it is simply slang and neither of you are going to make any substantial point(s) by eye poking each other over this.
betenoire is desperately trying to intimate that anyone who thinks his/her views on the Zimmerman matter are laughable are racists. Thus the stupidity above where he/she got his/her panties in a bunch about a correct transcription of DeeDee’s testimony is so hilarious.
I am aware of the race comments. Ignoring them is the best way to snub the flame; I will have to take my own advice.
WTF???