And in turn, thank you for what I found to be a very insightful report on why you’re feeling what you’re feeling.
I’m no expert on Twitter.
But isn’t non-standard English of some variety or other a staple of Twitter?
And given that Twitter limits messages to some small character count (140?) can we really analogize language skills in spoken life to language skills exhibited on Twitter?
Here’s what I see in this thread.
I see JoelUpChurch, who consistently ignores evidence that Zimmerman might be guilty unless it’s rock-solid, but gleefully accepts the slightest gossamer of evidence impugning Martin.
And I see Fear Itself, who consistently ignores evidence that Zimmerman might be legally blameless unless it’s rock-solid, but gleefully accepts the slightest gossamer of evidence impugning Zimmerman.
You obviously didn’t read her blog very carefully. She made detailed comparisons based on what witnesses said on the 911 recordings and the statements they made later and changes and accumulations of details and how their memories are altered based on later data they were exposed to. Her general conclusions are that the only reliable statements are the contemporaneous statement to 911 operator.
She also made some pointed remarks about the police officers who apparently couldn’t remember if Martin was wearing shorts or trousers.
Do you have some inkling of how the mechanism of language acquisition works? Do you imagine that txtspeak is the cradle language of these kids, and they are *unable *to speak or understand standard English?
Hell, I’m friends with the managing broker of the rental division of my company, and her twitter feed is full of that stuff, because she’s still in her twenties and it seems normal to her in this context. Yet she still writes perfectly fine business letters.
One thing that repeatedly occurs and yet overlooked in punditry about this case, even by defenders of “Stand Your Ground”, is whether Martin had a right to punch a strange “creepy crazy” man who followed him in the dark not once but twice.
If Martin was only steps from the condo where he was staying, if Zimmerman pursued him there, would Martin have been legally entitled to throw a punch?
If not, it is true that hearing Martin say “get off, get off” indicates Zimmerman laid hands on Martin, would he then have been legally entitled to resort to strong phyiscal force to disable Zimmerman from acting further against him?
Who had the primary benefit here of Florida’s SYG statute? If Martin had it, can it also be true that GZ had a legal right to “stand his ground” once the altercation began – or did he lose that right by becoming the pursuer of Martin? It seems to me I have a legal right to walk down a public sidewalk. I don’t have the legal right to menace other pedestrians on that same sidewalk.
I’ve read it enough to lose all respect for it as a source of clear-headed information about this case. But the blogger isn’t making any pretense about being fair-minded. The blog is proudly a pro-defense blog. People interested in shoring up arguments for Zimmerman’s acquittal or best defense tactics to employ will find it very valuable. The rest of us, more interested in simply understanding the overall situation truthfully, not.
Another wonderful example of someone standing her ground. She was “afraid” so she shot her own grandson eight times. She was so afraid of him that she plugged him while he was on the phone with 911. Aren’t guns and these wonderful laws written by the wonderful folks at NRA and ALEC just so peachy keen?
Chrissakes, Sarah Palin doesn’t speak Standard English based on her Twitter feed.
You went out of your way to mention the millions of stupid black kids, lamenting how they’re going to find a job if they can’t even read … like any of that has shit to do with Martin. You painted Martin as a half-illiterate simply because he’s black. How is that not a racist point of view?
There is no mention of SYG in the article. She’s being charged with “open murder”, which means she has the possibility of First Degree. Not really sure what your point is.
No.
That is, assuming “pursued” is synonymous with “followed.” If Zimmerman followed Martin to steps away from his condo, approached him and asked, “What are you doing here?” and Martin responded by punching Zimmerman, then Martin is guilty of a battery and Zimmerman is guilty of nothing.
But maybe you mean pursued in some other way. For example, if Zimmerman made some threat to Martin as he followed him: “Stop, or I’ll kick your ass!” then Martin is the victim of an assault, and the equation changes.
Maybe. The problem is that we don’t know what, if anything, preceded the “Get off, get off.” Certainly if it referred to Zimmerman grabbing hold of Martin, and that was the first physical aspect of the encounter, it means Martin was entitled to defend himself.
Right. But Zimmerman claims he merely spoke to Martin, and didn’t menace him.
Zimmerman is right that merely approaching someone to speak to him, with no threat, is not an act of menacing.
Of course I don’t know if Zimmerman is telling the truth. But in order to convict him, we can’t simply suspect he might be lying. To convict him, the finder of fact needs specific evidence to conclude otherwise.
- Michigan. not Florida. No dismissal before trial in Michigan.
- Shot eight times – four times before he called police and four after the call began. Going to be tough for her to rely on self-defense with those facts.
Since we’re on the subject, I’m curious to know what you think about the discrepancies between Zimmerman’s contemporaneous account of Martin’s behaviour to police dispatch (where Martin remained across the way and fled when he saw that he was being watched) and the accounts he gave later in the investigation, (where Martin approached his truck and circled it menacingly, prompting him be fearful enough to make sure the door was secure.)
What explains this best?[ol][]This actually happened, but Zimmerman simply didn’t think it was worth mentioning to police dispatch at the time.[]This is plausibly explained by the subtle mutability of memory.[*]Zimmerman invented this detail after the fact, in order to support his claim of self-defense.[/ol]
Because the idea that Martin was half-illiterate due to his race is something you said, not Joel.
This has not been overlooked; I have addressed it several times. No, Martin did not have the right to punch Zimmerman if all Zimmerman did was follow and attempt to question him. SYG has nothing to do with it, since SYG has only to do with situations of self-defense.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, I’ll say just that. you’re using butterfly logic. The “situation” was a knock down beating that lead to a fatal shooting. A did not cause B.
As of NOW, it appears that Martin initiated contact with Zimmerman based on the phone conversation. Prior to that, Zimmerman was just keeping him within eyesight. He was doing nothing wrong.
The conversation lead to a physical confrontation. If Martin struck Zimmerman down and wailed on him then the confrontation is his fault. If Zimmerman struck or touched Martin then it’s his fault.
The point is that another teen is dead because some halfwit with a gun decided to shoot it. Since she said that she was “afraid”, perhaps she thought she could pull the same defense as what Zimmerman is doing. How many people have to get shot before right wingers realize that guns are the problem?
You need to be clearer about how the SYG ground law would have actually changed the result. Zimmerman claims that Martin knocked him down and retreating wasn’t an option. Zimmerman wasn’t committing a crime under the old law by leaving his truck. Stupid yes, but not a crime. If we were talking about a case where Martin tried to assault Zimmerman and Zimmerman had an opportunity to retreat, that would be different , but that isn’t the facts we are dealing with. It Zimmerman didn’t actually do what he claimed, then that is different, but the State would still have the burden of proof.
It is possible that Zimmerman may avoid civil immunity under SYG, but I don’t see how that would make Martin any less dead.
Probably the same point of all his other posts in this thread, random spewing of liberal propaganda with no basis in fact, with poor or no meaningful analysis, and often times seemingly unrelated to the thread itself.
In short BobLibDem continues to make the worst posts in this thread, by far.
I will say that if Zimmerman approached Martin and Martin punched him in the face for no reason, and that was all that ever happened, and Zimmerman filed a police report against Martin that most likely Martin wouldn’t end up convicted of assault. I think any conflict between two people that happens without direct witnesses it will be very difficult to get a conviction.
There is no number. Guns aren’t the problem. Further, this isn’t a gun control thread, and we’ve had enough threads on the idiocy of anti-gun types in GD and elsewhere that there is no reason to turn this into a gun control thread.