Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
Quite well stated. Thank you.
- Status
C
Carlan
Guest
Originally Posted by EmperorNapoleon
Agreed.
I think the evidence exists in the contradiction of his version of events with the facts. Zimmerman claimed that Martin lept from the bushes and attacked him. That might make sense if the fight had happened where his truck was parked near the mailboxes because there are bushes there. But, the fight actually occurred on a sidewalk between two rows of buildings and practically on the other side of the complex from where the truck was parked and there are no bushes there. Zimmerman claimed that he was walking back to his truck, but he was actually walking away from his truck towards Martin’s path. I think he intended to apprehend Martin and force him back to the mailboxes so that he could rendezvous with the police with a burglary suspect in tow. Clearly it didn’t work out that way.
It is my opinion that this poster has considered it all thus far with common sense.
Peace, Carlan
Agreed.
I think the evidence exists in the contradiction of his version of events with the facts. Zimmerman claimed that Martin lept from the bushes and attacked him. That might make sense if the fight had happened where his truck was parked near the mailboxes because there are bushes there. But, the fight actually occurred on a sidewalk between two rows of buildings and practically on the other side of the complex from where the truck was parked and there are no bushes there. Zimmerman claimed that he was walking back to his truck, but he was actually walking away from his truck towards Martin’s path. I think he intended to apprehend Martin and force him back to the mailboxes so that he could rendezvous with the police with a burglary suspect in tow. Clearly it didn’t work out that way.
It is my opinion that this poster has considered it all thus far with common sense.
Peace, Carlan
D
donsnow
Guest
Good evening, all,
Well, I contributed my two bits’ worth on pages 31 -33 of this thread, and have found no other replies than on those pages to my posts.
And, anyway, this thread goes too fast for me, so I’m off this thread, now.
With that, let me wish all of you and yours a free, happy and safe (in order of importance) Independence Day.
God loves all of you and all of yours,
Don
Well, I contributed my two bits’ worth on pages 31 -33 of this thread, and have found no other replies than on those pages to my posts.
And, anyway, this thread goes too fast for me, so I’m off this thread, now.
With that, let me wish all of you and yours a free, happy and safe (in order of importance) Independence Day.
God loves all of you and all of yours,
Don
S
St_Francis
Guest
ETA: there are also bushes along the walls of each unit in the back near where Trayvon Martin was shot.
If one were to look at a map of the incident, one would see that that incident occurred nowhere near “practically on the other side of the complex.” There seem to be five or six units per section, and six sections lined up three in a line across from another three. There is a space between each section.
The truck was parked a short distance from the outside corner of the six sections, and the incident occurred in between the two sets, about two units in from the end near where his truck was parked, leaving about 13 or 16 units from the other end, at which there is a perpendicular set of units. To call where the incident took place practically on the other side of the complex is a tremendous exageration.
And you know this how? ]
With common sense… but without looking at a map.
And still no one has answered the question why Martin was there, since he had told Rachel Jentel he was almost at his father’s fiance’s place?
Except for two things.
- His truck was not parked as far away as described in the post, the other side of the complex would have been a much greater distance.
- We do not know which direction Zimmerman was actually traveling in other then his own testimony that he was headed back to his vehicle.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Unfortunately, yes (at least officially). It’s just one more example of the major Cop-Out (no pun intended) of the public school system. In my State, they are no longer “formally” (or officially) teaching it. There is no curriculum for it, no program, no time set aside, and no expectations. However, whenever possible, I insist that my own students do learn it. I have explained to several of them, that if you don’t have a cursive hand, you have no legal signature, which cannot duplicate your printed name. The very least you must know is your signature in cursive.
I further elaborated (and there have been true-crime shows about this) that someone else’s printed “signature” is very easy to copy, whereas forging cursive is much harder; much more goes into the strokes and the ‘spontaneity’ of it, as well as idiosyncracies.
Want to know an irony? Private cursive instruction is now wildly popular. Therefore, the public is now “having” to pay for what has been, since public schools began in this country, part of the standard curriculum.
And of course, reading cursive can be equally important aside from court. If someone leaves you instructions in cursive, and those are critical instructions for you or someone else, your inability to read it is not amusing. Third, cursive is faster because of much fewer stops & starts. A big plus when writing essays under timed conditions, and writing anything you need or want to write in a hurry.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
This case was overcharged, i.m.o.
And now it is being “tried” in the liberal press, complete with racial politics. Possibly Zimmerman used poor judgment or overreacted, but the problem is, as others have said, the informational gaps in the case, making unlikely a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
And now it is being “tried” in the liberal press, complete with racial politics. Possibly Zimmerman used poor judgment or overreacted, but the problem is, as others have said, the informational gaps in the case, making unlikely a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
C
Carlan
Guest
Your opinion like everyone else’s on this board has been expressed, shall we now wait for the jury’s verdict?
Let us continue to pray for peace in this troubled world as Mary asked at Fatima.
M
maryjk
Guest
I get that they aren’t teaching it now. So if you asked a 4th grade student to read cursive, I would understand that they couldn’t do it.
But this girl is 19, which means she should have learned it 12 years ago. They were teaching it back then. (I know my son learned cursive and he is 17.)
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
You don’t understand this. It’s been quite awhile since it has been taught with any consistency, and its use required with any consistency, in many public school districts, particularly poor ones. There has been much-to-much caving in to what “students should be expected to do.” What one does not use, one tends to lose.
So the point is that even where/when it’s been taught, say when this witness was in school, students were not expected to use it much, and that assumption remains in place today, and is accentuated in low-achieving schools, which this witness may have attended. I don’t know that much about her background.
I would know this, Mary. This is my field. And I don’t understand why you seem to be arguing with me. You’re very argumentative on this thread. I’m agreeing that it should have been taught to her.
C
Carlan
Guest
M
maryjk
Guest
Guess all of the graduates that I know that actually know cursive, don’t really. Oh, and her friend that wrote, really didn’t either.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Yep. People have claimed that his inconsistencies convict him. Interesting. Apparently, being convicted of murder doesn’t require solid evidence…just faulty memory. I would have a hard time convicting Zimmerman based on what I have seen of the trial.
I was a foreman on a three strikes case in California, which also didn’t have any witnesses other than the victim (thankfully alive) and the assailant. We did find him guilty, because there wasn’t much of a defense (they hoped the victim wouldn’t testify after being intimidated in pre-trial), but it was still tough to make fully informed decisions as a jury without hard evidence. People on this thread seem very cavalier in their guilty decisions…on a forum…reading/watching media accounts. A lot of them seem to be emotionally charged, rather than reasoned.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Who had said his inconsistencies convict him?
4
4Squarebaby
Guest
The problem is that we have seen the verdicts we can’t understand in other high profile media heavy trials. In this case it seems as if Florida only charged Zimmerman because if they didn’t General Holder would have, after all the President had already issued a verdict.
So now the state to protect its citzen from double jeopardy, as happened when President Bush took a second shot at the cops who beat Rodney King, they are actually putting on a defense disguished as a prosecution to change public opinion and to stop the federal government from finding a way to make this case federal.
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
K
kelvinf
Guest
O’Mara asked whether Serino had any evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon Martin after a non-emergency dispatcher told him not to.
“I would answer I have information, yes,” Serino said. “Just based on where we located Trayvon and the fact that the altercation happened after the confrontation. That’s my interpretation. There was some following.”
We know that he was on the right direction home. Could you please quote exactly what was said? In one of your posts, you were basically questioning the speed at which Travyon was walking or should have been walking.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Exactly.
B
Bill1940
Guest
Perhaps the NYTs should change its motto to read: “All the News that Fits, We Print”.
S
St_Francis
Guest
I think it is quite clear that Zimmerman was not near his truck when the altercation occurred. However, what he was doing at that moment: following, which implies a continued proximity to a moving person whom one mostly has in sight? or searching, which implies one has no clue where the person is? Or in terms of evidence, he may even have been standing still, listening, no?
Since what we have here is merely Serino’s interpretation, we actually do not have *evidence *of which direction Zimmerman was going in, or what he was doing.
I don’t have an exact quote because I don’t have a transcript, but Rachel Jeantel’s trstimony was reported in many sources like this one, which says: “Jeantel said she told Martin to run but that he responded that he was almost home.”
We don’t know the time for his saying that, bit we do have the time for Zimmerman’s call. Zimmerman said at 7:11:13 that Martin had started to run. Zimmerman’s phone call did not end until 7:13:41, just over 2 minutes later, and he did not mention seeing Martin in the interim.
I would suggest that Martin was 100 to 150 yards from home at the point where he started running, and could easily have made it home before the Zimmerman’s phone call ended.
And again, there is no evidence of where Martin was, which direction he was taking, etc., at that time.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Anyone relying on media for an objective opinion these days is looking at the wrong source.
- Status