I was just going off the 1.6 miles quoted in this thread.
No I don’t think so. I’ve relied on law professors and former prosecutors to help my arguments, but I’ve actually made my own arguments along with them. No way you get to just say “take it up with this guy.” If that’s all you’re going to do then you can’t participate honestly in this discussion.
As if the legal definition is the only acceptable usage. Whatever. Zimmerman is probably going to get away with murder.
I think I have a plausible explanation for Zimmerman not knowing the address during his call with the police. Keep in mind Zimmerman gets out of his truck and follows or chases Martin. It is possible Zimmerman is no longer on the street. He could be behind or between buildings when this exchange occurs:
At 3:18, the dispatcher and Zimmerman talk over each other:
Since they are talking over each other, Zimmerman could easily have heard the dispatcher say “What address are you {garble} in front of?”
Zimmerman can’t see any house numbers. He’s standing in the “cut through” behind or between buildings. So what does he say?
If Zimmerman says to police in his post shooting interrogation that he “got out of his truck to check a street sign,” I would find that highly suspect. But we don’t have a transcript of the police interrogation.
Does this change anyone’s mind about the cops’ conduct thus far?
I frankly cannot fathom what in the world your problem is. The quote was attacked as being full of shit, I realized I had failed to cite where it came from, so I cited word came from: a law professor. Not just some random guy. So if you or Terr or anyone else has a problem with what the quote says, your problem is with what he wrote.
And for the record I always argue honestly, I always speak the truth; it is something I cherish above all else.
It confirms their excuse; I still think they were overly ready to find that Zimmerman had acted in self-defense. I believe that if the roles had been reversed, a claim of self-defense from Martin would have been met with “yeah right, tell it to the judge.”
Your posts in this thread are evidence to the contrary. You have already made your mind up about this case, and are twisting, or even inventing, facts to back up your position. You are neither arguing in good faith nor speaking truthfully.
It’s quite clear that you value your emotional response to this case more highly than you value truth, or for that matter value people’s right to the protection of the law.
I don’t think Trayvon was up to no good, but I have been puzzled about how he would get into a fight with Zimmerman, even if Zimmerman was acting like an asshole when Trayvon doesn’t have a history on violence. If I got into a fight with every asshole I encountered, I would have have been in a lot of fights.
If he was already pissed off about an argument with his father or his father’s girlfriend, then that might be different.
His father didn’t have to search to find out something had happened. He just had to step out on his back porch. This happened 70 yards from the house. You would think he would have curious when it started raining.
BTW. I still think it was a long walk for Skittles. I’d do it for the exercise, but I’d probably still pick up a couple of bear claws. I usually reserve movies at the RedBox in front of my 7-Eleven and don’t even go inside. I hate paying for over priced junk food.
No 1.6 miles is the round trip. The 7-Eleven is .8 miles away.
Why do you think that?
Black kids don’t usually get a lot of benefit of the doubt from police officers, dude.
I know you are simply confusing me with others who are in general agreement with my view that Zimmerman needs to be held accountable. I have twisted nothing, because there’s no point: the facts are available. I abhor, from either side, (and both do it) the reaching for extra, non-existent or highly suspect details to enhance a position. It’s foolish and counterproductive and wastes time. And I find it extra-annoying when people with whom I generally agree do it, because I want my side to argue clean.
Case in point: “coon” - no, he didn’t say that. If you think he did, you have bat-like ears, and embracing a conviction that he did is evidence that you are wedded to a story you want to be true, not the truth itself.
In fact, I sided with Bricker twice - once on this, and earlier, because I live by my sig (and I’ve been acknowledged for it by my opponents in the past):
So rather than just making blanket, unsupported statements you think might be right, I think you should try to differentiate between the people with whom you disagree.
My son walks up to a convenience store that’s about .7 miles away 2 or 3 times a week. There’s nothing especially remarkable about that.
Yup. As I said earlier, I don’t think that Zimmerman is some skinhead out to murder blacks, and I don’t think the police are, either. But I don’t think there’s zero racism involved, that would be silly. Plus there’s been some issues with these police about unequal treatment of blacks in the past.
As was pointed out on Chris Hayes’ show about the incident, the kind of racism that makes a cop not believe a black kid in this scenario has even been observed from blacks themselves. We’re all human, and we’re all bombarded with negative images of young black males.
I did the distance to where he died. If you select the walking distance, then it is .8 miles. 1.6 round trip.
Why would somebody report the one-way distance unless they weren’t planning on coming back?
I’d consider it justice. U.S law has a very poor record in trying these kinds of white-on-black crimes because, deep down, I’m convinced white juries are incapable of at brown people as living, breathing human beings. We’re animals - or as original U.S law had it just 60% human. Zimmerman ought to be fearful since he’s a walking dead man, I read earlier that the Black Panther Party has a reward for his capture. He’ll be killed in jail (if he goes) or the street - as he should be. When the law is apathetic to reality and/or cannot be expected to deliver justice, it’s up to individuals to meet force with force and let the chips fall where they may.
- Honesty
See, this I cannot support. As much as my personal pride in the American legal system has been shattered by my own experience with it, I still believe it’s fundamentally excellent; the issue is with the human beings entrusted to carry it into effect. I think whatever Zimmerman did, it wasn’t an execution, and executing him in reprisal would not only be wrong, it would be completely counterproductive.
Stoid, you tried to claim murder doesn’t require intent, and attempted to back it up with cites that, on a close reading, state unambiguously that it does. There is one example of you stating something that is untrue, and arguing dishonestly about it.
Your history of legal incompetence, and inability to admit the same, is well known here. You are doing exactly the same thing here as you did in your cases - assuming the outcome you want, and twisting the facts and the law to suit that.
You want me to distinguish you from other posters with whom I disagree in this thread? Fine. Most of them are openly arguing from emotion, and making claims about what the law should be in these cases, and what would make them feel better about the case. You, on the other hand, have just enough knowledge of the law to create a superficially convincing simulation of an accurate, well researched and thoughtful post, with the clear aim of spreading misinformation.
I would, if time didn’t press for any reason.