In the past 2 days in which I’ve been participating in this thread I haven’t seen anyone do that in the simplistic, drive-by style posting of BobLibDem, but to the general concept (and anyone who may have said it before):
I’m extremely suspicious of anyone who is confident in calling Trayon Martin a thug or Zimmerman a victim.
When I say we have too much contradictory evidence that cuts both ways.
It’s inconceivable that GZ sent any text messages in which he admitted his guilt. What you might have is more inconsistencies.
Like the inconsistencies in his testimony to police, it will come down to whether they are significant or not. Based on my assumption that his story is substantially accurate, I would guess that they are minor. But of course that’s subjective. No doubt certain posters in these threads and others of like mind will think they are glaring.
I don’t answer people who answer my questions with a question.
Answered your question with a response: “Flawed analogy.”
Don’t answer me if you don’t want; I don’t give a shit.
It’s very stupid if Zimmerman sent any text messages in which he admitted guilt, but I could certainly conceive of it happening. He made several judgment errors early on that didn’t help him at all, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he had done something like text a friend a statement that admitted guilt, or had said something verbally to a friend that admitted guilt.
Then we’re right there on the same page. Plus it wasn’t an open floor question but a question specifically directed to Bricker, I didn’t want a response from you in the first place.
NO!!! Blood is comprised of three parts: formed elements, the buffy coat, and plasma. The latter is where drugs are found (usually) bound to a plasma protein called albumin.
If this was a real question, I’d likely say anything <5 ng/mL.
Yes. Generally negative.
No. I imagine he got the bouncer job because he used to be a big fella. Now after working there for a bit he’ll probably see a good number of fights and develop a feel for when two people are just jawing or not. Plus his ex-bouncer coworker said Z was pretty aggressive himself.
Not having ass kicking abilities myself, I got to learn how much shooting off at the mouth I could get away with. But that’s just anecdotal.
I disagree with this. Working as a bouncer teaches you how to handle drunk and belligerent individuals. You learn how to read people and how to protect yourself. The best bouncers can defuse a potentially violent situation with words and only resort to violence to protect themselves and others. From all accounts, Zimmerman’s first line of defense was his gun.
Here is where I start: How many teenagers die that night if Zimmerman didn’t go hunting bad guys with a a loaded gun? Then I work backwards. The onus is on the adult carrying a lethal weapon. I believe Zimmerman behaved recklessly and should pay a price. I don’t think second degree muder is appropriate; I see this as negligent homicide, akin to causing a death while driving drunk.
It’s ironic that the same people who rant and rave about ‘personal responsibility’ run and hide behind an insane legal statute that only encourages vigilante justice.
And, by your criteria, I didn’t give you one … so what are you bitchin’ about?
We’re officially having the dumbest conversation in history (which I was done with), you gave me a response, not an answer.
Make up your mind, Marty. Did I give you a response, or answer your question with a question.
Your turn to contribute to our dumb conversation.
EDIT: I was going to delete this whole thing because I misread “Answer” as “Question” but in the spirit of dumb conversation … fuck it.
Well let’s consider a hypothetical lawsuit where an injured pedestrian is suing a motorist who ran into him. The motorist claims that the pedestrian darted out into traffic.
If it turns out that the pedestrian had a blood alcohol level of .02, it would hurt the pedestrian’s case. Even if you had an expert testify that .02 would not have a significant effect.
If it turns out that the pedestrian had illegal drugs in his bloodstream, it would hurt his case even more.
Why? Because when evaluating a case, jurors subconsciously consider the character and worthiness of the parties. That’s why there are all kinds of rules which are aimed at limiting the effect of character evidence.
Of course, you may think it’s unfair that Martin’s use of marijuana will count in favor of Zimmerman, and I would agree on that point. But I think it’s worth keeping in mind that this entire case probably got most of its traction as a result of the same kind of unfair inferences. viz., people saw the picture of 14-year-old Martin looking all sweet and innocent and the picture of Zimmerman scowling in an orange prison jumpsuit and concluded that Zimmerman is probably a murderer.
I would say it’s conceivable, but a bit of a longshot.
I would guess that the prosecution will be able to point to a few minor inconsistencies in his story.
Or possibly something that is completely stupid in some other way, like his father was doing before. I get the feeling he is not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.
Maybe the prosecution is focussing on what Zimmerman claims Martin said, either before or after he was shot. “You got me” sounds rather melodramatic in a sort of Wild West way. Maybe Zimmerman made that up, whether or not he believes now that he heard it. And perhaps Zimmerman imagined or misconstrued whatever Martin said to him earlier, to sound more “gangsta” than it was.
I still think the prosecution over charged Zimmerman in hopes of intimidating him into a plea bargain to something lesser. Or else believed that the jury was going to find Zimmerman not guilty of whatever the main charge was going to be, but guilty of some lesser offense. So they charged him with second degree in hopes of getting manslaughter, instead of charging him with manslaughter in hopes of getting reckless discharge of a firearm, or similar.
I think that is Zimmerman’s biggest problem (and the prosecution’s best hope) at this point. Maybe the jury will say “well, he didn’t do anything illegal, technically, but we gotta convict him of something.”
The prosecution would have to have something pretty devastating to get a conviction on second-degree. It would pretty much have to be an outright confession.
Regards,
Shodan
Still waiting for someone to explain Zimmerman’s comment at the bond hearing about not knowing Martin was unarmed.
As a thought experiment, consider what you might say if a thug started beating you up visciously, breaking your nose, suffocating you, banging your head into the ground, and eventually forcing you to shoot him dead.
And then saying, weeks later: “I’m sorry. I didn’t know he was unarmed.”
Does this make sense to anyone in here?
I don’t think it is a statement that really hurts him at all. He can factually say that he did not know Martin was unarmed at the bond hearing without really impacting any part of the case. He doesn’t really have to expand on it at all in the general trial, and unless he takes the stand he’ll never be directly questioned on it again. I’m not sure how Corey can really use it to her advantage in the trial itself.