We have Zimmerman’s statements. Which are evidence. That you are unable to refute.
Fuck all speculation on my part, and a complete lack of evidence on yours.
Again.
Which ones? They cannot all be simultaneously true, so you’ll have to say exactly which statements you are relying on, and why they are more reliable than the statements you are not.
The evidence is there, you’ve had it shown to you many times, and you simply ignore it or deny it, as noted many times. Or sometimes you come up with creative explanations for why it doesn’t mean what it plainly means to normal human beings. (Weren’t you the one who explained away Zimmerman’s statement regarding having the police call when they arrived by speculating that he would be checking up on the previously-burgled home, then pretended I never poked two dozen holes in it? Maybe it was someone else…)
The policeman who took the statements disagrees with you that they’re inconsistent (as you’d know if you followed the trial), so there’s no problem there.
As for why he wanted the police to call him, listen to the call to the dispatcher again, and all will become clear. The dispatcher, for whatever reason, could not understand the directions Zimmerman was giving (at least partly because they weren’t all that clear), so instead of sending the police to the wrong place, he wanted to have them call. It’s not complicated, and it’s all there in easily available, public evidence.
I note, again, that you are claiming that evidence exists but not actually saying what it is. That’s what all the anti-Zimmerman people have been doing from the start, up to and including Angela Corey. If the evidence is there, and it’s as overwhelming as you must think from your level of conviction he’s guilty, it should be trivial to show it. And yet, all your posts have contained baseless speculation and stacked inferences - in other words, meaningless nonsense.
No, this is a lie, just like it was a lie every other time you said it. You have never shown any evidence for any of your speculation.
Here’s an example -
So when you claim that your idea that Zimmerman resumed pursuing, it’s a lie. You did not produce any evidence that Zimmerman resumed pursuing. You speculated (without evidence) and then claimed that you had refuted something. Which is a lie.
So, we can conclude that your repeated statements that you have proven anything are all lies.
Actually, there is a simple way to identify these lies. Any time you bold, underline, increase the size of a font, or change colors, you’re lying.
IOW -
This post has been lies by the Liar!
Regards,
Shodan
Exactly. Once he’s stopped, you need actual evidence that he started following again. Which we not only don’t have, but we have evidence from both Martin and Zimmerman that they’d lost sight of each other. Which means that Zimmerman, even if he was looking for Martin, could not have been following in a threatening fashion - the only circumstance in which Martin’s violence would be acceptable.
Only for people who are interested in substituting other people’s brains for their own. If statement A says the sky is pink and statement B says the sky is purple polka dots with red trim, the fact that a cop, or anyone else on the planet, says “I see nothing inconsistent in the statements” means zero. And that is the case here.
It’s crystal clear that you are doing what I mentioned earlier: making stuff up to explain the inconvenient facts away. We’re dealing in evidence and reasonable inferences, remember? ***The reasonable inference ***to be made from his statement was pointed out to him directly, by cops. And he didn’t say anything about them not understanding his directions. So if your wishful thinking were the fact, GZ would have said so. But he didn’t. He said lots of other things, though. Go and read the transcripts again.
Reasonable inferences are legitimate - complete inventions are not. You have provided an invention.
No, no invention. Listen to the fucking tape if you don’t believe me. Specifically, the part where the dispatcher incorrectly repeats the directions back to Zimmerman, and then he say to have the police call him.
Facts, dear Stoid. No invention necessary. I know you can’t tell the difference between the two, but plenty of others can.
I don’t need to make anything up to explain things away because, as the trial so amply showed, there are no inconvenient facts that incriminate Zimmerman. You, elucidator, and others who still claim he’s guilty know this, else you would present these facts. Which not one of you has done in the last 18 months. And I’m well aware you would if you could, because you’d love to prove me wrong.
Heard it a few dozen times. You are inventing.
I know you hate it, but I showed exactly how the facts in the trial could have legally led to a conviction for manslaughter, confirmed by Bricker, making it pretty revealing that you think the trial showed “no incriminating facts” - except for all the ones that could have convicted him of manslaughter.
Making it perfectly clear how you conveniently delete anything from your brain that doesn’t support your point of view. I’m sure life is much easier for you that way.
What part of his argument, specifically, are you saying are an invention?
What, specifically, am I inventing?
No, you didn’t. You have repeatedly admitted you didn’t follow the trial, because you already “knew” the “truth” of this case. The only way you could support a manslaughter conviction is to ignore all the evidence that it was self defence, and even then it would be overturned as there is (still) no evidence that it wasn’t self defence - the standard that’s required in Florida is what matters, not the one in your head.
It’s interesting that you keep saying that without ever having provided anything to show I’m wrong. So, please, produce these mysterious facts and evidence that show him guilty, that somehow were not presented at the trial.
She, quite deliberately, isn’t. I’m sure she thinks she’s being clever, but she’s not.
She’s also, quite deliberately, ignoring that, if I’m claiming there is no evidence, and she’s claiming there is, the burden is on her to produce that evidence, not on me to produce the lack, or whatever she expects.
Done dozens of times. As I said: I did lay it out. Made my case, and it was confirmed by our counselor in residence. All of which you know perfectly well. Unless… Oh dear, o you have that sad memory problem where your brain can’t retain anything so you have to start over from scratch everyday? That certainly would explain an awful lot of your apparent deficiencies…
But as for the question: theres nothing especially difficult involved in tracking this recent series of posts backward to see how it started and what I am referring to. I don’t intend to do that for anyone too lazy to do it themselves, it isn’t that complicated.
You made a specific claim, about inventions. It seems perfectly reasonable that someone would ask you to point to it specifically. If you are unable to do that, that’s helpful information. So, consider yourself asked again.
Post #746. Two posts above where you asked.
Missed this…when I answered earlier I was kinda sleepy:
If you know the law so well, great. Don’t tell me, tell our resident Counselor. (Emphasis mine, of course)
(By the way, please note my pretend-jury’s finding specifically regarding the issue of self-defense.)
Yep, that failed at step one. You claim you are entitled to reject any of Zimmerman’s claims that aren’t supported by evidence as false. You (as a pretend juror) are not.
You would need specific evidence that his claims are false to find them so, and such evidence does not exist. That’s why he wasn’t convicted, and why no reasonable person can consider him guilty.
But, as everyone knows, you haven’t a fucking clue how the law works, and, even given your hilarious and repeated slapdowns by various members of the judiciary, still believe that the law works the way you think it should, regardless of all evidence to the contrary.
You can’t even answer a simple question about what, precisely, I’m inventing, and instead link to a post that I and others thoroughly discredited. Ultimately, you admit you start from a position of bias assuming Zimmerman is guilty. That, frankly, is unacceptable in any good faith discussion, let alone when one is pretending to be a juror.
Conviction or acquittal is a legal fact, and that is all. I am a reasonable man. O.J. Simpson was acquitted. I think he done it.
Quite. Of course, the reason O.J. wasn’t convicted wasn’t because of the lack of evidence, it was because of extremely good defence work and an incompetent prosecution.
There’s another fundamental difference between the two cases. Simpson claimed that he didn’t do it (it being killing the person he was accused of killing). Zimmerman claimed that he did do it, and that it was legal. We also have Simpson’s de facto confession, which was not available to the court. No such evidence exists (to my knowledge) about Zimmerman.
Based on the evidence we have, Nicole Simpson was murdered, but Trayvon Martin was not.
Wow, you are so completely wrong it’s downright amazing!
It is the jury’s (or the judge’s - it is the “finder of fact” 's **fundamental function **to determine who is credible!
from the American Bar Association, an article entitled “Judging Credibility”:
Appellate courts cannot substitute their own judgment for the finders of fact except in very rare and unusual cases. Look it up. (Something I highly recommend you do more often generally)
And Trayvon Martin was unlawfully killed. (What’s the verb for manslaughter???)