I don’t understand this logic; if he didn’t use the simplest way, they he couldn’t possibly have murdered him at all? :smack:
I think if someone got into a pushing match outside my field of view, I’d be able to identify it by the grunts and scuffling of feet.
It’s my humble opinion that the Zimmerman apologists are not being honest with themselves. They know that it was wrong for Zim to murder Martin, but because it exposes the dangers of private gun ownership they can’t allow themselves to see murder when it stares them in the face.
But wouldn’t she hear a similar sound if Martin was punching Zimmerman? You usually exhale when you are punching also. It isn’t like cellphones are high fidelity devices. I still find it implausible that DeeDee would remember the exact order of events after 5 weeks. If Zimmerman grabbed Martin, then there wouldn’t be a thud. Actually I don’t know where you get a thud from. A thud sound more like a blow than a push.
It’s true that if nothing else had happened, it’s likely she wouldn’t remember the sequence of events about a conversation five weeks ago.
But that’s not the case here. Here, she had a conversation, it was cut off after her boyfriend told her he was being followed and he was afraid, and then she shortly thereafter learns he was shot to death moments after their call ended.
Do you find it implausible under those circumstances?
What I’m saying is if Zimmerman intended to kill Martin, then why come with a complicated scenario when a simple one would do? I thought he was reaching for a gun, is a tested alibi used by generations of police officers.
On a similar subject, Dershowitz was in a fine rant about the prosecution of Zimmerman.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1585842879001/alan-dershowitz-blasts-case-against-george-zimmerman
I don’t really agree with him. If this is a politically motivated prosecution designed to avoid rioting, I can totally see where responsible public officials might think it was their duty to throw Zimmerman under the bus. You can’t really expect a defense attorney to appreciate that.
The thing I find implausible is that the only statement from her is 5 weeks after the event. I would have expected a call to the police somewhere between 5 minutes and a day after the events, and I consider that not doing so may harm her credibility.
That said, there was at least one report that she’d been hospitalised because of the trauma. It may be that this, if confirmed, provides a reasonable explanation for the delay.
I was using the colloquial definition of “little thud” rather than the technical one.
ymmv
No one is saying that it was his plan all along to kill Martin. His expressed intent was to prevent him from getting away, and in the process of trying to accomplish this, he ended committing murder. That seems to be the most plausible theory on the table to me.
You’re asking why did he come up with a complicated scenario when he could have fallen back on a cliche? Well, if you were going to lie, what would be easiest? For you to whip up a story that was completely false, that bears little resemblance to what really happened, only because it’s a lie that has worked for other people? Or would it be easier to take what really happened and twist a few facts around so that any wrong doing conveniently is directed away from you?
You also seem to be under the impression that “I thought he was reaching for a gun” would have somehow saved Zimmerman from an arrest. But it wouldn’t have. People aren’t authorized to apply lethal force just because their paranoid brains makes them reactive and trigger-happy. This kind of thinking is why it’s so dangerous for people with impulse-control problems to carry concealed weapons.
Incidentally- no-one, not even the prosecution, is saying that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin.
Apart from that, it’s possible that it would be wisest to stick with the most laconic explanation necessary. Is there anything about Zimmerman’s behavior to date that suggests to you that he is most likely to do the most prudent and circumspect thing? Or do you think it’s possible that he might feel a compulsion to lay it on a little thick?
I thought that she was tracked down in March?
I think we heard about it 3 weeks after the event.
Idk when they actually talked to her. Presumably, it was before they told us on March 20.
Yes I do. Human memory is very malleable. The human brain just isn’t designed to remember to things exactly. If you search for ‘fallibility of memory’ you will find tons of references. Here is an article (with footnotes) on this from the legal perspective.
The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony
a talk by
Barbara Tversky, Professor of Psychology
and
George Fisher, Professor of Law
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm
The fact that those memories have a strong emotional content isn’t actually beneficial from the point of view of accuracy. The fact that Crumb had access to DeeDee before she talked to investigators doesn’t give me a warm fuzzy feeling either. I would have felt much better if she had some twitter records or a diary or something.
I don’t even have that much confidence in Zimmerman’s statements given just a few hours later.
Crump, the Trayvons’ lawyer, found out about the girlfriend and the call at Trayvon’s wake, shortly after the incident. He sat on this information (and I would imagine coached the girlfriend about what to say) for three weeks before revealing it to the press.
The prosecution is. To prove murder second degree, the prosecution has to show “evil intent”.
A defendant can be shown to have “evil intent” without being guilty of premeditation of murder.
Premeditation and “intended to kill Martin” are two different things.
Hatred, spite, or ill will also count towards 2nd degree murder.
I don’t know what the legal definition of “ill will” is, but Merriam Webster sets a low bar for it as being an “unfriendly feeling”.
So are “evil intent” and "“intended to kill”.
I am sure judges go by Merriam Webster’s definitions.
That’s fine, then. All I can tell you is her statements are perfectly competent and there is no memory-related issue that would prevent her from repeating them at trial. In other words, the defense can’t keep them out on the basis of Barbara Tversky, Professor of Psychology.
(Now, it’s possible that her statements are hearsay and thus inadmissible for that reason, but there well may be a way to get them in as exceptions to the hearsay rule. That’s another issue.)
Nice sarcasm there, but since the charge still stands, I don’t know why you’re so confident that it doesn’t fit Zimmerman. I mean, it ain’t like this hasn’t been vetted by at least a couple of lawyers and judges already.