talking about elephants, wow…is that the best way to respond to the fact that the 17 year old likely felt fearful of a strange older man persistently following him?
Now you want people to harrass the 911 victim’s families? What’s up with that?
I thought you were very clear about having Fenris call Erin Runnion. You said, "As far as stranger danger being no big deal, have you been balsy enough yet to called Erin Runnion to inform her that I am making too big a deal out of this issue?
Didn’t you want Fenris to call Erin Runnion? Were you lying about that?
So, did Zimmerman decide to murder Martin while he was still in his car, or did he overreact to Martin punching Zimmerman in the face for being a suspected abductor? It can’t be both.
Thank you for your valuababble thots Pollhorse. Except I never said " well, what the hell, the issue of a stranger harming or abducting a child is rare, so its irrelevant" or anything like it. So…yeah.
I like elephants.
Oops. wrong post. sorry.
Apparently Tolhorse thot that gz thot that tm was an elefant and tried to poach him but tm worried that he was being aducted by a strainger and hed push gz on his back and gz then repeated through his face into pour tms fists. Meenwhile gz thot tm was an elephant who was sitting on his chest.
I like elephants.
No–apparently harassing grieving parents is the right way to discuss it.
By the way, have you called Obama yet? Dont you care about tm or Erin Runnion tollhose?
In old Soviet Union, elephants like you!
Fenris, It doesnt make your case, by purposely misspelling my username, or talking about elephants. It just underscores the fact you have nothing relevant to say re the case that would help support your opinion.
I appreciate your attempt to clarify. But we’re still not effectively communicating with each other, and I genuinely want to, that’s the point of the exercise.
I want to understand what kind of circumstances would convince you, magiver, that someone lied about something. It’s a given that extremely powerful evidence contrary to their assertion is a good strong starter, but of course even that doesn’t technically prove a lie, depending on circumstances. As you have often suggested, why not an error of memory?
SO, what I’m trying very hard to convey and which I hope I am successful, is what you, Magiver, look to to tell you, in the absence of such strong evidence as an email admitting to diabolical plotting, that someone has lied. Not Zimmerman. Anyone. Let’s say you are on a jury in a criminal case that has some similar elements to this one, in that the defendant’s claims include many big discrepencies, things which go beyond meaningless details and cut to the heart of potential motives and so forth. So assessing their credibility is crucial to your vote. But there are no videotapes or slam-dunk email admissions of intention lies. So you have to consider their demeaner, their past, their other behavior, their speech, etc. etc. etc. to come up with an answer for yourself about how credible they are.
What sorts of things weigh heavily towards the likelihood of deliberate falsehoods over imperfect memory for you? Can you articulate anything to make it clearer to me how you view the process of determining credibility in the absence of such irrefutable proofs as email admissions and videotapes? Are there less obvious, less guaranteed things which you feel pretty confident can lead to a belief that someone has chosen to lie rather than made an error?
Or just in your personal life. If someone you know has told you something and for some reason you’ve had it put in your head that it might be a lie, what kinds of evidence that it is a lie would you look to?
Because that’s what started this back and forth about what qualifies as strong enough evidence of a lie when the slam-dunky stuff isn’t available. I have criteria for lie determination, and I assume you do as well. But it seems like they are probably very different criteria so I’m trying to understand what yours is.
Again, your patience and willingness to do this with me is appreciated.
(As an aside this is a very interesting topic for me personally because I am super-truthy girl, and that means that I am ridiculously truthful myself. Because of THAT, I generally tend very strongly towards accepting people at face value and I almost never think that anyone is lying. Even at the age of 55, I just blunder through life assuming that most people are like me, because lying just doesn’t even occur to me.
This has resulted, I’m sure you already realize, in my having my ass handed to me more than once. I still, old broad that I am, find mmyself constantly amazed at how much most people lie. It just stuns me.
All to say, looking for lies is not something I really have much practice with because I rarely think people are lying.)
Does that not make you think that you could be incorrect in your assessment that Zimmerman is a liar?
I think illiteracy is a very important issue. Thank you for your help illustrating the dangers of this very important issue.
The reverse!
If someone is frequently looking for lies they probably find them…and a lot of things they think are lies but aren’t. I’d bet, for instance, that cops, when dealing with people in their normal lives, are constantly struggling with suspicion about people they know and care about. They are trained to find the lie so they do, even when it isn’t there.
I am predisposed to believe people, I’m not looking for lies, I’m assuming truth. So when MY bullshit meter gets stuck in the red zone, I pay attention.
You don’t think that your normal inability to spot lies makes you less likely to properly ascertain what is and what isn’t the lie regardless how much your suspicions are raised or not?
While the cop may be more suspicious, I expect he will be more experienced and accurate at ascertaining what are and are not lies. All my simple uneducated opinion of course.
Stoid, Your point makes sense. I dont agree with the notion that someone who tends to be predisposed to assume a person is lying would be a better detector of b.s.
Nope.
Ah, yes – this is a favourite hand-waving exercise of Team Zimmerman. Two points:
Firstly, Zimmerman has, in fact, shown that he did in fact remember the names of the streets in the neighbourhood, based on other recorded NEN calls.
Secondly, Zimmerman was the friggen’ Self-Appointed Neighborhood Watch Captain. Maybe you’re serious when you say you don’t know the names of streets you’ve lived near for 20 years, and maybe you’re serious when you say that you had no reason to remember them. *Zimmerman did. *
Is this even in doubt?! In the video walkthrough he says that – after Martin ran – NEN dispatch asked for his address, so he ‘thought to look for a street sign, so I got out of the car’. That’s complete and utter poppycock, and you know it. He got out of the car because ‘he ran’.
Dispatch asked for the address he was parked in front of, not the street. This is looong after Martin ran, and looong after George is out of the car. Listen to what George says:
He say’s it’s a cut-through. That’s because he’s standing near the T of the….cut-through, between Twin Trees and Retreat View Circle. He didn’t say, ‘I don’t know the street’, he said ‘I don’t know the address’ – that actually isn’t a lie; from where he’s standing at the T, he’s only looking at the back of the houses.
Further – notice that George is asked for the address he’s parked in front of. He’s not asked for a street name. He’s not asked for an address on a street nowhere near where he’s parked. George could have walked 15 feet towards his truck, and he’d have a row of houses, facing out, house numbers all lit up and everything. Right near his truck…you know, where he’s parked in front of. Which is what the NEN asked him.
The whole ‘looking for a street sign’ is bullshit. The whole ‘looked for a house address on the other street’ makes no sense because it’s not what the NEN asked for. And in addition to clearly being bullshit, George compounds it by insisting that that street sign is why he got out of the car.
He’s lying. He got out of the car because ‘he’s running’, pure and simple, and he’s lying about it because – rightly or wrongly – he thinks that it may cast him in a bad light. From his very first statements, when he clearly realized that it might make him look bad, just listen to how he’s told big fat stinky ones at every point that relates to him ‘following’ Martin. ‘I wasn’t following him’. ‘He wasn’t running, he was like, skipping, like he wasn’t afraid’. ‘I didn’t get out to follow him, I got out to find a street sign’. ‘I wasn’t following him or looking for him, I spent two minutes after the NEN call by not going back to my truck but not looking for him, no sirree, I was just too scared to go back to my truck without a flashlight so I thought I’d stand around in the rain while not knowing where the possibly drugged, possibly armed, up-to-no-good real suspicious punk was at’.
He’s consistently and purposefully lied about this at every turn. Maybe he’s just scared that it would ‘look bad’ if he admitted following and such. But either way, he’s lied about it – and it means we can’t rule out the notion that he’s lying because he did, in fact, have a strong desire to ‘catch the asshole punk’ before he got away. He’s free to lie about his actions; I’m free to make assumptions about his motives to lie.
Dragonash, yes, gz thought it would look bad that he was following him, no doubt…which is why when the dispatcher first instructs him NOT to follow tm, gz is clearly heard replying “ok”…when he had no intention of following this instruction. He wanted to give the appearance to authorities he wouldnt continue to follow him.
He wanted to give the appearance to authorities that he wasn’t following Martin, so when the dispatcher asked “Are you following him?”, he answered “Yeah”. That’s an airtight scheme, right there.