I asked my question first. You chose to answer me with another question unrelated to my question. Why should I answer your unrelated question first? You are good at distracting and evading, I’ll give you that.
Fortunately for Zimmerman, the rule is still “innocent until proven guilt”. At least, for some of us it still is.
That’s a stretch. The dude isn’t as fat as we all thought he was, but he isn’t Ussein Bolt. He was talking to the 911 guy while this was going on; he wasn’t at a full sprint.
I’m sorry, but there’s no way from what I’ve seen that after the 911 operator asked him to stop following Martin, that he simply walked straight back to his truck.
I don’t answer your unrelated questions. You don’t answer mine. Great discussion, Airbeck.
You chose to respond to my post originally. You responded with unrelated questions. You lost this one pal. Don’t try to foist your failures upon me.
You chose to respond to my post originally. You responded with unrelated questions.
I’m not Ussain Bolt, but I can jog and hold a conversation at 6.5 mph on the treadmill. That’s 9.5 feet per second or about 10 seconds to cover 100 feet. So you’re right, that distance is more like ~15 seconds, but IIRC that’s abouth ow long Zimmerman runs. Certainly he could have ran/walked there in 20-30 seconds easily.
I addressed my post to a general audience. Again here is how I began:
“Can someone who is dismissing the fact of Z ignoring the 911 operator answer this:”
I was not responding to you. You responded to me. You accepted my question by replying and then didn’t answer it, and instead tried to get me to reply defending an argument I never made.
Nice try though. The failure here is most certainly yours.
In response to my post about it. But keep floundering about. It’s funny.
As a matter of law, there is no “authority for the proposition” that dangling a baby from the edge of a balcony while drunk is reckless. But most people–even lawyers and judges, I’d imagine–would conclude such a thing is reckless. And this is perfectly appropriate, objections from defense attorneys notwithstanding.
Yes. This is the only prayer the prosecutor has. Her only hope is to use circumstantial evidence and innuendo to get the jury to assume that Zimmerman started the altercation, because there is no direct evidence to show that he did.
Well, we don’t know that. She may be sitting on some dynamite piece of evidence that has not been exposed in the press, like an eyewitness with night vision goggles that saw Zimmerman run up to Martin and knock him down with a punch while screaming “F**** n**** I will kill you!”.
But if there is such evidence it will have to come out in discovery pretty soon. Although even if it does, I don’t think we will necessarily hear it until the trial.
How can you possibly say that when we don’t know all the faaaaaaacccttss!?!?!?!?!
Terr,
You are the only one posting about that topic in this thread, ever? What part of this is unclear to you?
“Can someone who is dismissing the fact of Z ignoring the 911 operator answer this:”
I’m addressing that to you particularly? Is that how you see that? You are aware that you are not the only person posting in this thread right? Do you think every question posed in this thread is being posed directly, and only to you?
I asked a specific question to a general audience in this thread. You chose to reply by trying to trap me in a gotcha unrelated to my question. You lose. Everyone here can see this, so feel free to keep trying to twist this around, but don’t think anyone is buying it.
You did manage to distract from my question though, which I’m guessing was your point the whole time anyway.
I’ve said it a couple times before. If there’s some sort of fantastic new piece of evidence that comes out, I’m willing to change my mind. Seems unlikely at this point, though.
nm
Anybody else think the murder 2 charge is just leverage to get him to plead down to unintentional homicide or similar? Wrap this whole thing up without a circus of a trial and the potential problems that might arise if he were acquitted?
What if no wounds are noted in the EMT report? No broken nose or signs of a beaten head?
To me that would be pretty compelling evidence that “who started it” is a moot point. Any altercation that doesn’t result in any signficant injuries is not an altercation that justifies shooting someone dead.
Possibly, but I don’t see that fitting in with Zimmerman’s actions. Volunteering for a 5 hour interview without a lawyer present? Turning himself in quietly? Launching a website to ask for financial support?
These are the actions of someone convinced of their own innocence, IMO. If that was the prosecutor’s intention, I think she’ll be disappointed.