Oh, I see, so the one witness, the one who says stuff you don’t want to hear, her testimony is invalid. OK, then why did witness six change his testimony so drastically? What makes his testimony more valid?
For my two bits, I don’t see how any of the eyewitness testimony holds much weight, even that which fits my preferred narrative of Martin trying to prevent Zimmerman from reaching his gun. Each and every one has contradicted their own testimony. But you want to insist that witness 6 is giving the straight poop? Why should we believe that? Can you offer us any reason?
You see the cite offered, and the only thing you take away is the merest scrap that supports your premise, and ignore the rest that doesn’t? Is there a better definition for “dishonest”?
Oh, why would someone change their story? Perhaps she did not realize who was wearing what clothes, and only found out from the TV? Who knows?
And frankly, who cares? I’m not relying on any of their testimony, so I don’t. But you are. Shit, if I had a dollar for every time you screamed “eyewitness testimony” like Barney Fife screaming “Citizens arrest!”, I’d be sucking down a bottle of extra fine single malt Scotch.
I don’t give a rat’s, throw them all out. You’re the one who’s stuck.
Damn, luci. Did you forget you posted to this thread in the 7 minutes after you posted? It’s really weird how your second post doesn’t seem to acknowledge the existence of your first.
You can have them both. For me, the witness to beat them all is Witness 13:
You’ve got to love a guy who hears gunshots, walks outside, and has a casual conversation with the shooter before the police arrive. Then, to top it off, he criticizes the shooter’s attitude.
Not that this changes my fundamental assessment: That Zimmerman’s bad choices (patrolling armed; ignoring dispatcher’s discouragement of pursuit; et bloody-minded looking-for-trouble cetera) combine to make him, if not legally, still morally responsible for an unjustified killing of an innocent young man.
He was not “patrolling”. He was going to the store. And seriously - “bloody-minded looking for trouble”? If Zimmerman was bloody-minded and looking for trouble, how in the world did he manage not to get into ANY kind of situation resembling this one before? He didn’t try to detain anyone before. He didn’t shoot anyone before. He didn’t confront anyone on the streets before. He didn’t get into fistfights on the streets before. He even never held anyone until police arrived before. Was this just a sudden “bloody mindedness looking for trouble” on Zimmerman’s part, with no previous history? He just woke up one day and felt blood-thirsty?
And - can you point to another example, anywhere, of someone “bloody-mindedly looking for trouble” who calls the police right before he’s intending to get in that trouble that he’s so bloody-mindedly looking for? Was Zimmerman unique in this regard, do you think?
Live with guilt the rest of his life. Knowing that his stupid and irresponsible decisions lead to the unnecessary death of an innocent 17 year old. And before you snap back about the savage and unprovoked beatdown he levied on poor George, I’m talking about innocent of being the house robber Zimmerman assumed he was. He was simply, and innocently, walking back to the house he was staying with some snacks, and then he was dead because some wanna be cop idiot decided he wasn’t going to let this one get away. SYG or not, guilty or innocent of murder, at the end of the day, his actions and incredibly poor decisions resulted in this death which was wholly unnecessary at the beginning of the night and never would have happened if George didn’t get out of his car and go following a scared kid down a dark corridor with a gun.
If you don’t agree about my characterizations of Zimmermans decisions and actions that night, then ask yourself if you were in his shoes, would you have taken the same actions and made the same decisions that he did that night? Would you have gotten out of your car carrying a gun and pursued someone on foot on a dark rainy night if you thought that person was a possibly dangerous criminal? Would anyone participating in all of these threads on any side of the discussion have done just what he did that night? Anyone willing to state that they would have made the same decisions as him? Somehow I doubt it.
So the fact that a poster on a messageboard has pronounced Zimmerman to be "morally responsible " will cause Zimmerman to feel guilt for the rest of his life? How does that work exactly? You may want to start with how Zimmerman learns of the pronouncement in the first place.
No, I never said that. He should feel that way, but I didn’t say that a message board post would magically force him to feel that way somehow. That’s kinda crazy talk.
Yes, we’re all *wearily *aware by now that you fart in the general direction of moral responsibility and ethics. I personally like to pretend that professional and collegiate sports don’t exist, but my fantasy doesn’t include the delusion that the rest of mankind agrees with me, nor do I hang around in sports forums to threadshit proclamations of my superiority. There must be plenty of message boards that cater exclusively to the amoral; wouldn’t you feel more comfortable among your own kind?
I might add that, if Zimmerman does not, in fact, feel any guilt or remorse for what he’s done, then he is a heartless creep. At the absolute bare minimum he should feel guilt for shattering the lives of his own family, never mind the family of the young man he killed.
He’s morally culpable for a death that didn’t have to happen, but did because of choices he made. It’s up to him, not us here speculating, to live with that reality. How he chooses to process it internally, we will never know (not even if he “writes” a tell-all book), but that does not forestall us from forming opinions on the topic, nor discussing those opinions in a forum dedicated to such discussions.