Maybe that’s how things should be (though I don’t think so); reasonable minds can disagree.
What can’t be reasonably disagreed on is the law as it currently exists, and under which Zimmerman is subject to the same laws governing self-defense as anyone else.
Perhaps he thought there’d be a sign where the street makes a 90 degree turn.
Isn’t that street also the entrance to the complex? It’s hard for me to believe he didn’t know that one.
Especially when he’d previously given the street name in previous NEN/911 calls…
If you want to have a really good laugh, watch the re-enactment video. The conversation he describes having with the NEN person the night before is jaw-dropping, especially around the whole following/street sign/number/meeting/calling chazerai. In the manner of liars since the dawn of time, he babbles on about a whole bunch of stuff that never even came close to being said in that conversation. He might as well have a blinking neon sign across his brow “Liar! Liar!” And I highly recommend you study a map of the place first (there are three named streets altogether) and remind yourself that the guy has not only lived there for what, 3 years?, he’s also made a slew of calls to the NEN telling them where to find his latest suspicious character. It’s just the most transparently false pile of garbage I have ever, in my memory, personally witnessed - there is nothing whatsoever in what he’s saying that tempts me in the slightest way to believe him.
Looking at that map never fails to amaze me. This guy got an A and was reported to be among the bettrer students in his criminal procedure class…but he doesn’t know where he is in a “complex” that is really nothing more complicated than a square with two extra streets thrown in. Yeah, I buy that. Oy vey.
the video: George Zimmerman Re-enactment (Full Video) - YouTube
But unless you can absolutely prove that Martin WASN’T a werewolf who was about to transform and bite Zimmerman’s head off, the fact that the person asserting self-defense is an obvious and compulsive liar about the events of the shooting doesn’t matter!
I think it’s harder to believe he spent the whole phone call struggling with directions as part of a diabolical plan that required he fake forgetting the name of the street.
Do you really need experts on memory to suck any more life out of this trial or will common sense dictate the unlikelihood that he pretended to forget. Is your memory that good that you don’t forget stuff?
I’m convinced. That absolutely proves…something or other. They should execute Zimmerman.
You have yet to establish a single lie yet you continue on the same tracks the Prosecution used to go over a cliff.
Keep posting this every time the next one of Zimmerman’s lies is discussed, it should start working on #28 or so.
I agree. The prosecution has them right where they want them. Woo hoo!
The complete and correct way to express what you are saying is actually:
“You have yet to establish a single lie…to my personal satisfaction and standards.”
Why and how you have managed to be by far the most prolific poster in this thread for over a year and yet also managed to completely shut out, deny, ignore, or whatever it is you do that keeps you certain that Zimmerman has never deliberately told a lie about that night, I cannot begin to fathom. I have had the privilege of directly observing you do some impressively committed and creative hoop-jumping to stay in the “Zimmerman Never Lied” space when confronted with some very damning evidence to the contrary. And while it isn’t particularly useful in the real world, it’s certainly an impressive achievement, I have to say. Bravo. I guess.
This makes me crazy. (And again, you just happen to be the one in the moment, you are hardly the worst offender, not even close. Just bad timing, I guess) What is “this”? Well, if there is an actual term for it (and considering the extensive logical fallacies and debating tricks I’m sure there is) I don’t know what it is, I can only describe it.
Zimmerman absolutely lied, and that’s been very comprehensively demonstrated many, many times.
Whether the prosecution convicts Zimmerman or not, or does a good job, or has enough evidence, doesn’t take that away. Doesn’t mean that Zimmerman did not lie in all the instances where he clearly did. And CR wasn’t saying to Magiver “Hey, Zimmerman’s lies are going to land him in jail for the rest of his life! You just wait and see!” or anything similar. I think we are all realizing that he’s almost certainly not going to be convicted, but that wasn’t the point, so why do you say this? What’s the goal of saying this? How is it any kind of response? Just random taunts? Really?
Irony.
If you believe so passionately that Zimmerman lied, and that those lies have such a bearing on the case that it should be open and shut, then there’s no one who will change your mind. A man who was in an altercation that resulted in injuries to his head and his killing another person is going to make mistakes, be somewhat inconsistent, and yes, maybe lie to save his own ass.
But there’s also the bigger lie, and that’s the one that led to this trial in the first place: that TM was just a momma’s boy, not doing anything wrong, another example of the racism of the system, shot in the back, just wanted some Skittles, didn’t hang with any disreputable people…whatever. We got the yearbook photo of a young Trayvon and a cry for “JUSTICE!” All predicated on a lot of “facts” that either didn’t make it into evidence at this trial, tended to be neutral or positive for the defense, or were themselves outright distortions.
I don’t agree that a single lie has been established, but let’s not even worry about that for the moment. You answered your own question. My point is that the passionate, enraged and seemingly endless prattle about Zimmerman’s lies are for what? My reaction was to a series of impassioned irrelevancies. We might just as well rant about his haircut.
Seriously, you don’t see anything amusing about the intense, enraged passion over the obvious “lies” and the fact that no one (including you, apparently) thinks the prosecution can do a thing with them?
I was not taunting (I thought you were a seeker of truth, not someone invested in a “winning” side?), I was amused and making a point. The point being that the “lies” have amounted to squat in the determination of this case, something that appeared to have escaped the scrutiny of some in the thread. It’s a taunt, I suppose if you assume that there are sides here, evidence be damned. I want a fair trial, based on the actual law, and if the prosecution comes up with something solid that makes their case, good for them, and let Zimmerman pay the piper. But even if you want to characterize that as a taunt, I notice you’re very selective in the ones that make you crazy.
BTW, just because I’m curious, why is it you don’t see the need to characterize Zimmerman’s lies as “lies established to my personal satisfaction and standards”? You take exception to others offering their perspective without qualification when you make comments like, “Zimmerman absolutely lied, and that’s been very comprehensively demonstrated many, many times”? As long as we’re splitting hairs over posting styles and habits…
Except that I don’t think it should be open and shut and never did. My personal feeling is not the same as what is legally entered into evidence and argued and how I think that will go down. I’m not my fellow Team Trayvon member you with the face, whose convictions about how great one thing after another was going for the prosecution seemed just a tad optimistic. I actually think the case was lost a long time ago, really, not because of the lack of evidence but because the incredibly shitty way it was handled from the outset.
That’s fine, but that’s not how it read. I
The thread is about opinion and speculation, remember?
I am and I don’t see how these two ideas connect… ?
I’m sincerely confused about the connection you appear to be making about taunting and winning and sides. I think there might be a cultural connection I’m missing and it maybe has something to do with team sports? Which I don’t follow even a little… but that’s just my best guess. Please enlighten me on this.
I repeat… regarding taunting. Why would I find your clear, easily understood and completely reasonable desire for a fair trial based on law, etc to be a taunt? It wasn’t sarcastic or mocking, but your other remark was.
I’ll take the point. Gingerly and without total conviction, but I’ll take it and look it over. But I’ll also answer by saying, as gently and un-fingerpointy as possible, that passionate convictions I certainly have, no question, I’m opinionated as hell, but I have not been among the passionate (and they are represented on both sides!) who have twisted themselves into some really embarrassingly ridiculous knots to shove the square pegs they want really really hard to be true into round holes they just don’t fucking fit. Nor do I just flat out ignore solid cites, information and reasoning placed before me, answering it with nothing but my unsupported opinion, which some people absolutely do.
In fact, I take boatloads of grief around here, not for being flip, or short, or incomplete, or for failing to back up my assertions. No, never. I take reams and reams of shit for saying TOO much, offering TOO many cites, going into TOO much mind-numbing detail. So whatever my shortcomings may be, I can’t legitimately be faulted for just dumping my unsupported opinion all over the place, nossir, I’m Citegirl and Her Wall o’ Text! I spend entirely too much time making as sure as I can that I don’t make any major statements about anything directly out of my ass. That way lies madness, because the only way I can stand the reams of shit slung in my direction is by doing that.
And in my truthfreak world, if I have to squeeze my eyes shut and stick my fingers in my ears in order to hang on to a particular opinion, then I’ve sacrificed the thing I genuinely care about more than anything else, so why fucking bother?
In other words, like most people who debate for amusement, which includes a significant percentage of our SDMB population, I like being right But some people are satisfied with the appearance of rightness. So that will often become the focus of their argument, doing what they feel they need to maintain the appearance of rightness for whatever audience they are hoping is paying attention. (This behavior and mindset is exemplified by Fox News, but that doesn’t mean it’s a right-wing phenomenon. They just happen to be the exemplars.)
Others, and I count myself among them, prefer to actually be right, because hey, right = truth and I’m a truthfreak. So if I passionately believe ABC is totally right/true, and you show my truthfreak mind that XYZ is obviously truer, and therefore righter, than ABC, then I have no problem at all accepting it.
And there I shall end my latest excess…
I just wanted to say after reading this post, I had to take the time to register just to say this.
A truth seeker would approach this case with an open mind and let the objective facts, evidence and testimony determine the truth.
A person who has a predetermined outcome in mind, and will ignore the truth, or determine that if it does fit that outcome, then the truth is incorrect is not a truth seeker.
There is a word for the latter, and that is a partisan. IMHO.
It just seems to me that this was the wrong case to make symbolic of anything, especially any sort of race issue.
I think all of us here would agree that there are significant failings with the justice system in this country, that there are cases of crimes precipitated by nothing more than the color of someone’s skin, and that issues like the disproportionate prosecution/conviction of black defendants, or police brutality, or profiling, or any tangents thereof are worthy of discussion and debate.
But Trayvon Martin didn’t end up being that, in the end. At best, we have the camps of “wannabe thug” versus “wannabe cop” and neither of those options are terribly attractive, even if the truth (which, honestly, we’ll never know) is somewhere in between.
In my neck of the woods, a few years ago some people I went to high school with abducted, beat, tortured, and left for dead a local developmentally disabled black man. Many of the other white kids who were there admitted that the attackers deliberately targeted him because of his race, and used racial epithets. They left him for dead in a fireant bed.
No one was ever brought to justice for that. And now that man, who didn’t have a penny to his name before, must spend the rest of his life in an assisted-living facility.
I wish, fervently, that that case had made national headlines. Given the attention the Martin/Zimmerman case has gotten, I really believe that the same attention would have outraged everyone except the most extreme racists in this country.
A street sign which is not visible from inside a vehicle?
One of those free-spirited cryptid street signs which break the boring utilitarian rules?
