What I know about how the world works suggests a gun holstered at the right hip would he drawable when laying on your back. What makes you think otherwise? Or is this another situation where you’re going to ignore the facts because they don’t suit you?
Projecting again? Your very deliberate avoidance of inconvenient facts is amazingly transparent. I can only wonder who you believe you might be fooling? “Drawable when laying on your back …please don’t bring up Trayvon Martin straddling Zimmerman, having his leg up against his body…please let me pretend that I didn’t leave out the most crucial part…”
Martin’s leg was blocking his own ability to see any gun still in the holster,and blocking Zimmerman’s ability to reach for it.
If you doubt that, I invite you to act out the scene that Zimmerman has described and that you have described repeatedly. Get someone about 5’7" tall and roughly 200 pounds to lie on their back on the ground. Get someone Approximately 6 feet tall And approximately 160 pounds, to straddle the more portly person on the ground and make the motions of punching smothering and pounding. See for yourself how likely it is that the person on top would leave any gap of any kind between their left leg and and the person on the bottom’s right hip. What will you discover? It is not remotely likely. It is very awkward to be straddling someone. You’re certainly not going to be straddling them making violent moves against them and leaving extra room on either side between your leg and their body.
So what happens to an awkward straddler if the guy on the bottom starts bucking like a bronco?
He’d be pushing his body even further into his rider’s crotch, causing the “rider” to clamp down even harder, making reaching the holster even less likely.
But according to Zimmerman, he did absolutely nothing at all until he “remembered” he had the gun. :rolleyes:
Zimmerman didn’t remember the gun. Trayvon told Zimmerman he had it and even pointed it out for him.:smack:
Sorry, but I’m not going to go out searching for evidence to support your claims. That’s your job, not mine. If you choose not to support your claims, that is of course your choice.
I don’t see how it follows that Zimmerman hit Martin before the police arrived.
I have no idea what your point is here. Did Zimmerman deny shooting Martin before the police arrived?
That’s different from what Mr-Pookie said:
If you want to jump into an exchange, you need to make clear what your own position is.
Yes. Do you dispute that it occured?
So, if you get into a fight with a cop when you’re 21, it becomes impossible to be pinned and beaten when you’re 28? I learn so much from your posts.
No, it is different from what Mr. Zimmerman said.
Yes, truthful people are cool, and people that don’t tell the truth suck.
I saw once, on a TV channel.
Hey, Tollhouse, remind me: didn’t you once say that George Zimmerman had only one friend?
Was THAT a truthful statement?
Gee, wouldn’t it be ironic if someday someone mentions that in connection with your veracity?
Stoid…I’ve differed pretty sharply from you in your interpretation of evidence in this case, and what inferences are reasonable or not. But I think this is the first time I’ve seen you be dishonest as to the literal content of a piece of evidence. I’m disillusioned, here.
Your recaps of what Zimmerman said are inaccurate.
Stoid Version: When Martin said “you got me”, George didn’t think he hit him
What Zimmerman Actually Said: “After I shot him, he like sat up…and I didn’t think I hit him, because he sat up and he said, uh, ‘you got me, you got it, you got me’, something like that, so I thought he was just saying 'I know you have a gun now, I heard it, I’m giving up.”
Stoid Version: When Martin slumped over onto his face in the grass, George didn’t think he hit him.
What Zimmerman Actually Said: “I don’t know if I pushed him off me or he fell off me.”
Here’s an article about Angela Corey that should interest some people.
While it wasn’t allowed in court there is a video taken by Martin with his voice on it. ABC News had it analyzed and it indicates Martin is not the person screaming on the 911 call. It supports the logical conclusion that a person being beaten is going to be the one screaming for help. We know who has the injuries and who doesn’t and we know who was on top and who wasn’t. You really have to stretch your belief system to think it was Martin screaming.
Zimmerman never claimed Martin specifically said “you got me” nor did he say Martin said it loudly nor did he claim Martin keeled over. He said he sat up and said something like “you got me” or “you got it” which is WHY he thought he hadn’t hit him. You keep changing the narrative of what Zimmerman said to fit your own preconceived version of events. It’s odd that you make the claim that Zimmmerman lied when you yourself can’t seem to state things correctly on a regular basis and you have the advantage of reviewing the evidence. He testified for 5 hours plus made a video from memory. After all that the Prosecution wasn’t able to demonstrate he misstated himself. They would have had a field day with you.
What would make you think Martin drew his hands in while that occurred? How many seconds would it take to check what was in each of Martin’s hands? Maybe 5 seconds if Zimmerman took his time?
You’re the one making up strawmen to knock them down. In your defense I find it hard to believe that Martin was able to sing all the versus to the Star Spangled Banner while bleeding out.
Seriously? Zimmerman misremembers everything, but I am actively intending to be dishonest when I say all over the place that I am speaking from memory, please correct me? I’d be shocked, except I’m not.
And then, your proof of this unfogivable dishonesty is this?
The meaning of my description of what he said (never asserted to be an exact quote) and the exact quote are identical: Zimmerman didnt think he hit Martin…even after Martin supposedly said out loud " you got me"
The meaning of my description of what he said (never asserted to be an exact quote) and the exact quote are identical: Zimmerman didn’t think he hit him, even after he (allowed his live, unhurt body to be pushed) (keeled over on his own for no apparent reason.)
Good lord…
Back up.
Physics that a small child would understand
Gunbarrel aimed dead center of chest, touching clothes, a few inches from flesh.
Trigger squeezed.
BOOM…Kickback…heat…
Stop.
“I didn’t think I hit him”
:dubious::dubious::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Everything after is just more confirmation of what he had to already know: not only did he hit him, it was all but impossible to have missed him.
That Kool-Aid you’ve been sucking down is damn powerful stuff, that’s for sure.
I didn’t realize you found English so challenging. That makes it impossible to communicate with you… Oh well.
It’s amazing that you can’t see yourself making stuff up. You literally changed Zimmerman’s narrative to fit your own. His unhurt body? really, where does Zimmerman say or infer this? He states that because Martin sat up he didn’t think he hit him. How long do you think before he came to the conclusion that he hit Martin?
Then stop speaking from memory and look at the fucking evidence. Your memory, just like Zimmerman’s, is flawed.The difference is, he was required to make his statements and video from memory. You are not. Do what you told brazil84 to do and watch the video.
He didn’t say that. He said Martin said something like that, which he took to mean (since Martin was still alive and speaking, not keeled over instantly dead) that he realised he Zimmerman had a gun and was willing to use it.
That you believe (falsely) that Martin should be unable to speak after being shot is reason to think Zimmerman might also believe that. Far too many people believe that Hollywood physics and biology (and for that matter, television investigation of crime) is factual.
No, it doesn’t mean that. It’s not an eternal, unchanging belief that persisted forever in the face of the observable facts (although it’s clear why you might think a belief would work like that). Do you not think that a clear progression from not thinking that he’d hit him, to wondering what the hell happened, to realising he’d killed him, in the space of a few seconds, is believable? Because it certainly fits the known facts, and it fits the way many people think.
We are bombarded with fictional images of gunshot deaths, in films and video games, and to some extent in TV shows. Almost everyone had seen them, but not everyone is aware that they aren’t accurate depictions, and more importantly, even if in calm reflection we realise that they are fictional, in moments of stress we’ll only remember the most prominent things. Real gunshot wounds and deaths are, according to many sources, almost anticlimatic compared to fictional depictions.
Hard to get anything resembling a quality voice sample from the dead guy, one would think.
Maybe I’m judging you against too high a standard then, given that your sub-debate on this has covered several consecutive posts, and you normally rely on cites and have the facts straight (as I said, it is your interpretation of facts I have differed with, not the facts themselves). That you’d just innocently get the facts wrong hadn’t occured to me, which is actually a compliment.
If it was just an error of memory (ironic as that is, in this context), I apologize.
Martin supposedly said out loud something like “you got me” or “you got it”. He is utterly free of certainty on that point, as the walkthrough makes clear. What about “You got it” would make him think he’d hit Martin? Heck, what about “You got me” is unambiguously “You have shot me, sir” as opposed to “I will now comply with you, armed person”?
C’mon now, there is a huge difference, when arguing that Zimmerman must have known Martin was shot, between him just collapsing onto his face, and Zimmerman pushing him off him as part of an apparent surrender by Martin. Zimmerman never says Martin fell off of him, he says he doesn’t know.