quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: The defense calling Tracy Martin as a witness was a dumb move. Also, this judge seems fairly biased towards the state.
Agreed on both points. I mentioned the other day that I didn't understand how the judge thought whether Martin was in pain as he died or not was relevant, yet he squashed the defense's objections.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Thank you for the advice, "TomDavidson," but I think I'll keep it as is. If putting quotes around people's names makes me look mean and snarky, I guess that'll have to be my cross to bear. We'll see how long everyone else keeps on with the passive aggressive method of telling me to change it. At least you're direct.
eta - I mean, what, are we afraid that someone is going to mistake me for the President?
Because that's what you want when you're new to a forum. Ongoing conflicts stemming from your abrasive behavior. Trust me, I would know.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Orincoro
I know you're trying to help, and thanks for that, (no sarcasm) but I don't see how I'm being abrasive. I've got a name that apparently is annoying people, but I feel my posts haven't been disruptive and I've contributed positively to conversations, if not always in topics that this board has much of an interest in.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by graywolfe: Yep, my own view is that this is a free pass for stalkers to murder their victims...
I can imagine myself being followed, and shot dead in numerous neighborhoods near where I live outside Lake Tahoe if Zimmerman's defense flies.
...you don't get to stalk and harass strangers as you please, and shoot them if they eventually respond to your stalking and harassment...
Beside the fact that you're ignoring entire elements of this little drama, from what we've seen so far, there's no convincing evidence that Zimmerman "stalked" or "harassed" Martin - especially to the point of retaliatory violence. There's nothing illegal, immoral, irresponsible, uncouth, yadda yadda yadda about approaching a suspicious stranger in your neighborhood in order to ascertain their reason for being there. If you think Martin was profiled, or if you don't like people carrying guns around your Tahoe suburb, or if you think Zimmerman is just a dirty rotten person for not minding his own business, just say it. But this "stalk and harass" mumbo jumbo you just laid before us is ridiculous.
quote:The defenses I see of this guy are ridiculous in my view, even if his version of events are 100% true, and to live in a world where his actions are seen as defensible, or not criminal is truly sad, and a world bereft of justice, and without justice, the law really means nothing at all.
graywolfe - The Moral Dictator and Arbiter of Justice! Who needs trials and evidence when we have internet forum users to mete out justice according to their whims?
Let us all know when you're done being the paragon of righteous indignation...
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obama: If people want to believe that I'm an ass because I use a famous name as a pseudonym, Tom, then honestly, that's their problem, not mine.
It's not the only reason, nor the most noticeable. It doesn't prove them wrong, that's for sure.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Hey Kwea, you should adjust your pants. That hard-on you have for me is kind of noticeable.
IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
But since I'm always open to suggestions, what besides my name bothers you so much, Kwea? Feel free to take this to the Down with the British thread, since it's already dead and I see no reason to pollute this one further.
IP: Logged |
Since you asked....I dislike idiots who think they are smarter than everyone else. Particularly when they are so obviously not to everyone else in the room. I've watched people TRY to engage you in multiple threads, and watched you try to sneer at some of the smartest people on Hatrack. It amazes me that anyone could fail so horribly and yet have no clue they failed.
I don't hate you. You don't even particularly annoy me. I just don't like you, and have yet to see one single instance where you added a single positive thing to Hatrack.
::shrugs:: It's OK, if you don't agree, or have a favorable view of me at this point. If you did, I'd have to rethink my life.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right...well...anyways, I take back what I said before about the judge being biased since she said Trayvon's marijuana use can be admitted in the trial, which I think is strange. My (inexperienced and under qualified) opinion is that she just isn't a very competent judge because she's sustained some objections that I thought were iffy and overruled some that I thought had a point.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Wow, you sure proved ME wrong. LOL
Since you asked....I dislike idiots who think they are smarter than everyone else. Particularly when they are so obviously not to everyone else in the room. I've watched people TRY to engage you in multiple threads, and watched you try to sneer at some of the smartest people on Hatrack. It amazes me that anyone could fail so horribly and yet have no clue they failed.
I don't hate you. You don't even particularly annoy me. I just don't like you, and have yet to see one single instance where you added a single positive thing to Hatrack.
::shrugs:: It's OK, if you don't agree, or have a favorable view of me at this point. If you did, I'd have to rethink my life.
Well, okay then. No silly grudge there, no sirree.
Where in Imaginationland may I find these posts of me sneering at the "smartest people on Hatrack?" I can think of, maybe, one. I was a little blunt with Lyrhawn when he tried to imply that it was King George in the title of the thread and not something else. That was wrong of me. Unlike some others, Lyrhawn is calm, respectful, and argues on the argument, not the poster. Lyrhawn is good folks. Sorry Lyrhawn!
Anything else? Go on, I've got almost a hundred posts. Shouldn't be hard at all.
Anyone else agree with Kwea, here, that my posting style has been sneering and dismissive(moreso then the style employed by several of Hatrack's finest) and overall not at all positive? I've obviously ran over his dog or something, but if others agree I can make adjustments.
IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Right...well...anyways, I take back what I said before about the judge being biased since she said Trayvon's marijuana use can be admitted in the trial, which I think is strange. My (inexperienced and under qualified) opinion is that she just isn't a very competent judge because she's sustained some objections that I thought were iffy and overruled some that I thought had a point.
Yeah, you're right, Martin's THC levels have nothing to do with the case. It kind of, in a warped way, balances out some strange decisions she made going the other way, but she's coming across as pretty incompetant.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Right...well...anyways, I take back what I said before about the judge being biased since she said Trayvon's marijuana use can be admitted in the trial, which I think is strange. My (inexperienced and under qualified) opinion is that she just isn't a very competent judge because she's sustained some objections that I thought were iffy and overruled some that I thought had a point.
Yeah, you're right, Martin's THC levels have nothing to do with the case. It kind of, in a warped way, balances out some strange decisions she made going the other way, but she's coming across as pretty incompetant.
Next comes testimony regarding Zimmerman's THC detection device that he carries around with him, which is why he was following Martin!
This sideshow really needs a tricorder controversy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or the prosecution brings in an expert with proof that the amount of THC in martin's system would've caused him to be too high to attack someone.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nono, remember, it's somehow unreasonable that the jury didn't get to hear about his THC levels because they made him a criminal and stuff, and...and pot, blagghh!!!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I mean, what, are we afraid that someone is going to mistake me for the President?
The problem, "Obama", is that in political forums people often need to refer to the President of the United States. Since you're a participant in the discussion, sometimes they'll also need to refer to you. So we need a frigging way to differentiate between the two of you.
As it currently stands, if I say "Obama is a bozo." people will have to rely on context to understand whether I'm referring to you or to the president.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Or the prosecution brings in an expert with proof that the amount of THC in martin's system would've caused him to be too high to attack someone.
I know you're trying to help, and thanks for that, (no sarcasm) but I don't see how I'm being abrasive. I've got a name that apparently is annoying people, but I feel my posts haven't been disruptive and I've contributed positively to conversations, if not always in topics that this board has much of an interest in.
quote: Thank you for the advice, "TomDavidson," but I think I'll keep it as is. If putting quotes around people's names makes me look mean and snarky, I guess that'll have to be my cross to bear.
You're not aware that this is abrasive? Did you think it was polite?
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Hey Kwea, you should adjust your pants. That hard-on you have for me is kind of noticeable.
We call this trolling. At best, it's simply abrasive.
Kwea:
quote: It amazes me that anyone could fail so horribly and yet have no clue they failed.
So you still have the capacity to be amazed by that? I guess I'm impressed. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
I did think it was polite, actually. I wasn't being sarcastic when I thanked Tom, just like I wasn't being sarcastic when I thanked you. I know you think I should change my name too, but assume for a second that you were in my position. How would you have worded it?
As for Kwea, he came out of nowhere, once again, with some personal attacks(which he has yet to back up.) That wasn't a troll, that was a response to a troll, and you're damned right it was meant to be abrasive, since his last such attack in the British thread went unmoderated. Do you agree with his assertions about my short posting history?
quote:Originally posted by Obama: If people want to believe that I'm an ass because I use a famous name as a pseudonym, Tom, then honestly, that's their problem, not mine.
It's not the only reason, nor the most noticeable. It doesn't prove them wrong, that's for sure.
You know, the post right above the one you quoted.
eta - Bonus footage of Kwea absolutely NOT being a troll and/or dick.
-----
See...I was right. You attempted it. And failed, as you usually do at most things. Things like carrying on a civil conversation, appearing intelligent, and making others care about your opinion even a little bit.
Congrats!
(That's how to be snide. Keep practicing, grasshopper)
In the example you made, sure, quotes could make sense, I guess, although I'm pretty sure everybody here is good at that whole context thing.
But that's not the case when someone is speaking directly to me, is it? Unless people make a habit of addressing one of the Obamas directly on this board? In that case, it's just passive aggressive snark.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Or the prosecution brings in an expert with proof that the amount of THC in martin's system would've caused him to be too high to attack someone.
Well played, sir.
Is anyone saying THC levels should *not be admissible? Whether you think THC would make a person more passive or more agressive is debatable, and it could potentially help either defendant or victim. THC having an effect on a person's state of mind is documented. When a case centers around both victim and defendant's state of mind I'm not sure why anyone feels it should be hands-off. Unless I'm missing the objection?
Posts: 135 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
ScottF
When was the last time you met a violent person who was high solely off cannibis? If you don't associate with such people, then I'll let you in on the secret - they're not violent.
Funny music video on the subject. NSFW, and the music itself isn't good, but the lyrics are humorous.
Even if you dispute that, it's still irrelevant. The levels of THC in Martin's blood did not indicate that he was stoned at the time of the confrontation. THC, once it's done it's thing and is in it's inactive form, gets absorbed by fat cells. When the cells are used for energy, the THC is released back into the body, to eventually be flushed out in urine. What this means is that a person can have THC in their system for a week or two after their last dose, up to a month in heavy users or those who try the heavily concentrated varieties. That he had low levels of THC in his system in no way indicates that he was high at the time of the shooting.
Look, I think Zimmerman should take a walk on this, I've made that pretty clear, but this evidence is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to whether GZ committed murder, or was forced to defend himself by Martin. It shouldn't have been allowed. The judge has made several questionable decisions and this one happened to go against the prosecution.
IP: Logged |
1) The level of THC in Martin's blood suggests that he was indeed mildly stoned, but not staggering. 2) THC can cause paranoia, and paranoia can lead to violent behavior even if you're otherwise quite relaxed.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
My mistake on one, then.
I've never met a person who was only mildly stoned (2-4 hours after inhaling the drug) who was also paranoid. Even the stoners that I've known, when they went into paranoia, showed it by telling us about government conspiracies, stuff like that. I've never seen or even heard second or third hand of someone getting violently paranoid. That's entirely anecdotal and doesn't mean much, I understand.
IP: Logged |
posted
I have known an extremely violent stoner. Though in fairness, he was usually drinking at the same time. He was a really nice guy sober but drunk and/or stoned, he was downright pathologically violent to the point where I had to chase him off with a baseball bat. I damn near took his head off when he reached into his pocket. Fortunately I hesitated just long enough to see it was a cigarette pack. I still think I would have been justified since he did go to jail shortly afterwards for shooting someone.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Hah. Well, it's interesting to hear of one, but if I had to make an entirely uneducated guess, it would be that the booze had a lot more to do with it.
IP: Logged |
posted
Bottom line is THC alters state of mind, which is most definitely in play here. He could have been jittery and nervous, or pliable as putty - but it's relevant. To treat it like it's some kind of unfair profiling move, instead of legitimate information is puzzling to me.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: [QB]there's no convincing evidence that Zimmerman "stalked" or "harassed" Martin
I assume of course in order to take this view you are hoping we entirely forget the transcript of his call while he was stalking martin and got out of his car to continue doing so.
ffs this is getting completely ridiculous. Can't wait to again hear that zimmerman couldn't have been much of a threat because obesity
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: [QB]there's no convincing evidence that Zimmerman "stalked" or "harassed" Martin
I assume of course in order to take this view you are hoping we entirely forget the transcript of his call while he was stalking martin and got out of his car to continue doing so.
The 911 call doesn't indicate Zimmerman was "stalking" Martin (and even less so that he was "harassing" him). Following or pursuing someone isn't the same as stalking.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems pretty (that is, totally) a question of semantics and perspective to me.
We're supposed to believe that Zimmerman reasonably believed Martin either was a criminal or was contemplating a crime. The closest actual physical evidence we can get for this is some light pot smoking, that Zimmerman simply would not have been able to detect, at night, at that distance.
Well, alright, if people are going to suggest we ought to take seriously that claim, please for pity's sake don't tell me that someone seeing another person following them, at night, over a period of minutes, while they were doing nothing wrong, might feel they were being stalked.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, alright, if people are going to suggest we ought to take seriously that claim, please for pity's sake don't tell me that someone seeing another person following them, at night, over a period of minutes, while they were doing nothing wrong, might feel they were being stalked.
Depends on which definition of stalking you are using. By the legal definition, I do not believe he could be charged with stalking. One incidence of following someone around for a few minutes isn't enough. By the broader dictionary definition, I suppose you could call it stalking, though I think there are other words that are more accurate.
Since we are talking about a trial here, I can see why someone would object to the use of the word stalking. I bet Zimmerman's lawyer would as well.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Or the prosecution brings in an expert with proof that the amount of THC in martin's system would've caused him to be too high to attack someone.
Well played, sir.
Is anyone saying THC levels should *not be admissible? Whether you think THC would make a person more passive or more agressive is debatable, and it could potentially help either defendant or victim. THC having an effect on a person's state of mind is documented. When a case centers around both victim and defendant's state of mind I'm not sure why anyone feels it should be hands-off. Unless I'm missing the objection?
I was under the impression that he had THC stored in his system but was not under the influence at the time of incident. I thought the defense wanted to use his marijuana use to profile him as a criminal.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Since we are talking about a trial here, I can see why someone would object to the use of the word stalking. I bet Zimmerman's lawyer would as well.
Zimmerman's lawyer would also object to the description of Zimmerman as an idiot wannabe cop.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
and as should be so profoundly evident as to need to be restated, I think it was pretty obvious that zimmerman was stalking martin. It is even attested that martin's perception that he was being stalked (in one of zimmerman's five inconsistent or contradictory accounts at least) that led to the savage assault! by one of the 'these assholes that always get away'
if there was no stalking then it means that we have to conclude that martin either just saw a dude and absent any connection to the idea that he was being pursued, followed, harassed, etc, was like 'oh cool a dude! i can totally attack him, cause he is here. i don't even need to put my iced tea and skittles down first'
or zimmerman up and assailed him first
defense team doesn't need a jury deciding which of those two is closer to the razor
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're effectively arguing that anyone following anyone should be called "stalking".
But if the words are identical in meaning, why are you deliberately using "stalking" instead of "following"?
We know why: because "stalking" has negative connotations which "following" does not. So gee, the words aren't the same after all, and you *should* differentiate between them. And therefore NO the police call doesn't indicate that Zimmerman was "stalking" Martin, it only indicates that he was following Martin.
You can't have it both ways, you can't in the same breath effectively argue that following=stalking, *and* show such a preference for the word stalking. Either the words carry the same meaning or they don't.
But I'm not surprised at the sheer amounts of double-think displayed by the Zimmerman haters.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: You're effectively arguing that anyone following anyone should be called "stalking".
But if the words are identical in meaning, why are you deliberately using "stalking" instead of "following"?
We know why: because "stalking" has negative connotations which "following" does not. So gee, the words aren't the same after all, and you *should* differentiate between them. And therefore NO the police call doesn't indicate that Zimmerman was "stalking" Martin, it only indicates that he was following Martin.
You can't have it both ways, you can't in the same breath effectively argue that following=stalking, *and* show such a preference for the word stalking. Either the words carry the same meaning or they don't.
But I'm not surprised at the sheer amounts of double-think displayed by the Zimmerman haters.
Hey, how about you go "follow" someone on a dark street long enough for them to notice. Bonus points if you do it to someone of a different race. Extra bonus points if you're a man and you "follow" a woman.
See how well that works out for you. When they react to you, say "hey, I'm just following you."
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Foust, you're just bashing on Zimmerman because you are prejudiced against African-American lesbians like her.
When young white southerner male Martin started punching her, causing her to bleed from multiple wounds, we're supposed to believe that her "stalking" him was sufficient reason for him to start beating her up, and sufficient reason for her to be charged with second-degree murder, even though she had shouted for help dozens of times and sustained multiple head injuries before actually resorting to shooting him.
The photos of her bleeding and bruised just after the incident, aren't enough to move the hearts of those right-wingers who I suppose imagine their own sisters and daughters should have suffered even more injuries from their attackers before fighting back.
The Zimmerman haters instead try to present her as a mad racist stalker that was just out to murder some random poor white kid; they present acts of mere carelessness as indicative of malice without the slightest shred of evidence. Or with evidence as flimsy as that she used the word 'punks' and 'assholes'.
Can anyone doubt that these right-wing haters of Zimmerman are actually motivated by tribe allegiance games where everything done by the white southerner kid Martin must be seen as somehow justifiable, and therefore his killing be made unjustifiable?
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Since we are talking about a trial here, I can see why someone would object to the use of the word stalking. I bet Zimmerman's lawyer would as well.
Zimmerman's lawyer would also object to the description of Zimmerman as an idiot wannabe cop.
There is no legal definition I am aware of for the terms "idiot" or "wannabe cop", they merely express your opinion of him. Yes, his lawyers might object to it but I don't and you are free to call him that all you want.
Now if it were a crime to be an "idiot" and this was legally defined as having an IQ below 50 but Zimmerman was tested as having an IQ of 55, you could say he is really stupid but continually calling him an idiot when legally, he has been proven not to be would be just plain asinine.
Now you may think that his actions should be considered stalking but unfortunately for you, the law disagrees. You are in essence, continually accusing him of a crime he did not commit. You might as well call him a pedophile, j-walker, child pornographer, tax evader and car thief while you're at it.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: You're effectively arguing that anyone following anyone should be called "stalking".
But if the words are identical in meaning, why are you deliberately using "stalking" instead of "following"?
We know why: because "stalking" has negative connotations which "following" does not. So gee, the words aren't the same after all, and you *should* differentiate between them. And therefore NO the police call doesn't indicate that Zimmerman was "stalking" Martin, it only indicates that he was following Martin.
You can't have it both ways, you can't in the same breath effectively argue that following=stalking, *and* show such a preference for the word stalking. Either the words carry the same meaning or they don't.
But I'm not surprised at the sheer amounts of double-think displayed by the Zimmerman haters.
It's like you skipped over the entire (central) part of the discussion where, no, nobody is arguing that the words are identical, rather pointing out that a reasonable person, in Martin's shoes in that scenario, could have felt stalked and that there is evidence that he did.
So...nice try, I guess?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Aris, this is all about race-baiting. He's made that clear on Ornery, too. It's apparently very hard for him to understand why some people might not blame Martin for being angry and scared about someone "following" him home in the dark.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:nobody is arguing that the words are identical, rather pointing out that a reasonable person, in Martin's shoes in that scenario, could have felt stalked and that there is evidence that he did.
Rakeesh, if the argument had really been "Martin may have felt stalked" I'd be in full agreement with that.
Samprimary's argument however was effectively that Zimmerman stalked Martin, as supposedly proven by the police call. NOT what Martin may have subjectively felt, but rather what is supposedly proven that Zimmerman did.
quote:To Aris, this is all about race-baiting.
I certainly believe it's about politics in general and racial politics more specifically. "Race-baiting"? I'm not sure what that means actually, and therefore I don't use the term.
I believe that some people are choosing to defend a member of an allied tribe (Martin), regardless of whether he's right or wrong, and to exact vengeance against the one who harmed him (Zimmerman), regardless of whether said harm was justified or not.
If that's race baiting, then okay -- on my part I just call it "tribal politics" like when Greeks support the fellow-orthodox Serbs against the Muslims, and like when Arabs support Palestinians against the Israelis, regardless of whether Serbs or Palestinians are on the right or on the wrong.
Rightness or wrongness just doesn't affect one iota whether they'll choose to "support" or "oppose" -- the decision is predetermined and set by tribal allegiance.
quote:It's apparently very hard for him to understand why some people might not blame Martin for being angry and scared about someone "following" him home in the dark.
It's very hard for me to understand why anyone can ignore, excuse, or forgive someone repeating hitting a man who's on the ground repeatedly shouting for help.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ...nobody is arguing that the words are identical, rather pointing out that a reasonable person, in Martin's shoes in that scenario, could have felt stalked and that there is evidence that he did.
You're the one that argued it's merely semantics, as if we're trying to use a different word for effectively the same thing. Following and stalking are different according to definition and the law.
Martin's perspective is important (though I think there are other courses of action a reasonable person would take instead of confronting their pursuer) but the trial is attempting to ascertain Zimmerman's intent. If there is evidence Zimmerman's real intention was to threaten, intimidate, and scare Martin, with the hope that such behavior would lead to a physical confrontation, you might be able to make a case that he was stalking.
Following a suspicious stranger in a gated community not long after a rash of burglaries and break-ins? It's hard to argue that Zimmerman's initial reaction was unreasonable. It seems like those against Zimmerman want to portray his actions as stalking due to the mounting evidence that Martin instigated the physical violence, because were he being "stalked", he would have been justified in doing so.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's very hard for me to understand why anyone can ignore, excuse, or forgive someone repeating hitting a man who's on the ground repeatedly shouting for help.
For my part, I'm very skeptical that this is what happened.
And if you'll recall my post from Ornery, I actually better understand why you might continue beating someone on the ground -- especially if you know he has a gun -- than why you might bring a gun to go stalking your neighborhood.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just read that the judge wont allow the jury to see Martins text's and pictures. I agree with the judge's decision. That said, knowing he was very much into fighting and guns makes it less difficult for me to envision him deciding to attack the creepy ass cracker who was following him.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
ScottF: Based on what? I think the judge was right in the end to exclude the texts, but on a technical legal point (hearsay not quite within any exception), not on relevance or prejudice.
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's very hard for me to understand why anyone can ignore, excuse, or forgive someone repeating hitting a man who's on the ground repeatedly shouting for help.
For my part, I'm very skeptical that this is what happened.
There is both physical evidence and witness testimony to support Zimmerman's story - Martin on top, hitting Zimmerman's head on the concrete, while he called for help. You can remain skeptical (moreso, and unreasonably skeptical, IMO, than everyone else closely following this trial) but you're always welcome to present what you believe to be a more likely scenario and back it up with evidence and testimony.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Martin probably struck Zimmerman against the concrete a couple times. If you think that's enough to decisively win a fight against someone with a gun, you're wrong.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
